Rousing the Rubes

 | 

Sarah Palin interested me during the 2008 U.S. presidential election, for two reasons.

First, she occasionally seemed to embody the “West coast” style of libertarian political philosophy, based more on practical life experience than on academic training.

Second, her flashes of libertarianism seemed in tension with her claims of evangelical religious faith.

Either of these matters could have made her a compelling public figure. I hoped that she’d bring the first into mainstream political consciousness and offer some resolution to the second. But things didn’t work out that way. Quickly, Palin’s public figure had more to do with persona than philosophy.

Then, in fairly short order, her ticket came in second in the presidential election, she resigned as governor of Alaska halfway through her first term, and she signed a contract with the Fox News Channel to appear regularly as a commentator. She also released two books and starred in a short-lived “reality” television show.

In the coming presidential election cycle, I expect that Jon Huntsman — who’s recently resigned his position as U.S. Ambassador to China and taken the initial steps toward candidacy — will be the person who might raise the issues I’d hoped that Palin would.

Meanwhile, Palin remains on the scene. Her cult of personality is still strong. And her cult of animosity may be even stronger.

I’m not the first to note how closely she resembles the character Emmanuel Goldstein in Orwell’s 1984 — in respect to oppositional politics, if not to intellectual power. Establishment Left groups use her name or image to incite passionate response in readers, donors, and other constituents. We’d need someone like Freud to explain the reasons why Palin resonates so strongly with the Left. But there’s little doubt that she’s marketing gold — a lip-rouged bogeyman who drives clicks to leftwing websites and sells magazines and books.

There we might leave the discussion. And yet . . . the intensity of Palin-hate that small minds on the Left feel is worth considering in some detail. It’s instructive of the state of political discourse.

In late January, the New York Times ran an opinion column by one if its lesser agitators. The piece was highly critical of Rep. Michele Bachmann, who’d recently delivered a semi-official Tea Party response to the president’s state of the union speech. The agitator mocked Bachmann’s manners and makeup but, more than anything else, she presented Bachmann and Palin (by ham-fisted logic since, to that point, Palin had said little publicly about Obama’s speech) for Two Minutes of Hate.

There’s little doubt that Palin is marketing gold — a lip-rouged bogeyman who drives clicks to leftwing websites and sells magazines and books.

And hate the Times readers did. It’s easy to ignore, or forget, how childish and emotional some Americans are about politics. The internet is great for illuminating things like this. Here are some excerpts from the scores of comments that appeared afterward on the newspaper’s website.

“Michelle Bachmann is as ridiculous a political figure as Sarah Palin. The question, however, is why we are covering either one of them. Both Palin and Bachmann know virtually nothing about the important political issues facing our nation, are not qualified to serve in any sort of high level political office, and do little more than degrade the level of political discourse in our nation.”

“The GOP is ignorant about history. The GOP is ignorant about Europe (Paul Krugman’s piece yesterday). The GOP combines that ignorance with an agenda to misinform the public in such a way that voters, against their own economic interests, support policies that benefit a wealthy elite that is getting richer by the day. . . . If only Obama had been the people’s leader we thought we were getting.”

“When I think of Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin I always think of mud wrestling. Even Michelle’s description of the lovely outfit she was wearing years ago . . . doesn’t dislodge the frame by frame fixation I have of her and the former half-governor from Alaska in a mud pit, pulling each other’s hair, calling each other names, slipping and sliding in the sticky brown goo.”

Such keen insights are hard to top, but here are two more:

“I just don’t get it as to why do so many people respond favorably to people like Palin and Bachmann? And add to them Glen [sic] Beck and Limbaugh fueling their fire along with others trailing in their wake like Ryan and Boehner. They mock and are sarcastic with religious fervor. To me they are so off the wall and ridiculous that whatever they say is total nonsense. . . . I tremble. I want a brainy President like Obama and brainy people around him.”

She serves as a scapegoat, in the original sense of that term: she carries off the failings that her haters fear in themselves.

“Bachman and Palin are the bullies in the kindergarden [sic] of Republican politics and no other kid in their class will stand up to them. Could their behavior be a portent of the approaching death of the party of the rich old white well educated ruling elite and the emergence of a new party of servants of the rich — probably labeled the New Stupids, but just as much in the pockets of the monied [sic] class . . .”

Bear in mind that all of this was posted, in a public forum, just a few weeks after the “brainy” Barack Obama had called for more civilized rhetoric in the nation’s political debate.

I’m no Freud, but even I can see the psychological themes in the Palin-hate. It’s projection. And she serves as a scapegoat, in the original sense of that term: she carries off the failings that her haters fear in themselves. Ignorant, ridiculous, stupid, bullying, mocking, sarcastic, a stupid servant of others, of elite political forces,and . . . ridiculous. Clearly, her haters don’t feel very good about themselves.

And they worry — a lot — that they’re ridiculous.

Perhaps with good reason. “JF” from Wisconsin believes that the GOP’s wide-ranging ignorance empowers it to bamboozle the nation’s voters. And consider the political order, as interpreted by “Annie” from Rhode Island: in her view, three pundits and a junior congresswoman dictate the political agenda to the Speaker of the House. And there are thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of these mail-order Aristotles out there — all desperate to show that they are so very much smarter than Sarah Palin.

I have no idea whether Palin will run for president in 2012 — though I doubt she will go very far if she does. But I’m glad she’s still on the scene. The response she evokes in the rubes is rich.




Share This


A Gargantuan Gift to the Unions

 | 

After his decisive defeat in the recent congressional elections, President Obama is now trying to portray himself as a born-again centrist, verbalizing vague sympathies for small business and lighter regulation, not to mention capitulating to the Republicans’ demands to renew the Bush tax cuts for two more years. He is even feigning admiration for President Reagan.

But Obama is one of the most artful deceivers in the history of an office well known for attracting deceivers. As I have urged before (“Obamalaise,” Liberty, May 2010), you have to look at what he does, not merely at what he says. And what he is actually doing is continuing to advance his leftist agenda.

A particularly disgusting illustration is his recent decision, almost completely ignored in the mainstream media, to allow TSA employees (the airport screeners) to unionize.

When the TSA was set up, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the TSA administrator was given the authority to choose whether to give the employees the right to collective bargaining. Until now, the TSA has not done so. But Obama’s choice to head the TSA, John Pistole, changed that policy. Now the TSA’s 40,000 airport screeners — those paragons of efficiency and decorum, so eager to guard our privacy rights — join the ranks of public employees who are already in unions. The TSA employees will vote in March between representation by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Treasury Employees Union.

John Gage, president of the AFGE, crowed, “Today marks the recognition of a fundamental human right for 40,000 patriotic federal employees who have been disenfranchised since the inception of the agency.” Well he might crow, since these events will add 40,000 new employees to the public employee unions, which saw a drop of about 250,000 members in 2010. They will thus add an enormous amount to union dues, which will be spent on (among other things) electing Democrats in the next election cycle. In line to get the lion’s share of those union dues will be Pistole’s boss, Obama. It is very convenient.

Pistole says that the TSA workers won’t have the right to strike or engage in work slowdowns — as if we could tell whether these people are staging a slowdown or not. He also says that the workers won’t have a say in any matter that concerns airport security.

The devil is in the details.

In any case, if Obama is reelected, you can bet that these presumed restrictions will be loosened or eliminated. In the meantime, after the TSA workers unionize, we can expect their wages and benefits to skyrocket, adding significantly to our national deficit. Worse, disciplining lazy or inefficient workers will soon become incredibly difficult, rather like trying to fire incompetent tenured teachers, with the obvious effects on our collective security.

Let us now praise moderate men.




Share This


Blow Hot, Blow Cold

 | 

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936, one of the New Deal’s proudest accomplishments, is often cited as an example of government’s ability to do good and generate progress. In 1910, nearly 50 million rural residents (over half the country) lived without electricity. By 1950, 45 million of those formerly "unhooked" were "on the grid," thanks to the REA. Or so the story goes.

Commercial electric utilities, with low voltage transmission lines and facing huge infrastructure investments for universal service, were loath to extend power to far-flung homesteads. Additionally, these were regulated monopolies with prices fixed by the government. But Charles Kettering, developer of the electric starter for automobiles, sensed an opportunity.

After selling his company, Delco, to General Motors, Kettering introduced the Delco-Light Farm Electric Plant in 1916. The small gas-powered engine coupled to a 32v DC generator and a set of batteries came with an entire line of optional peripherals: lights, appliances, well pumps, and electric motors. It was an instant hit. By 1936, nearly 150 companies were selling farm electric plants and more than 600,000 rural homes and businesses were generating their own power.

Meanwhile, according to Craig Toepfer’s just-released The Hybrid Electric Home (Schiffer, 2010), a bunch of radio enthusiasts in Ohio were giving birth to the renewable-energy industry.Fine Homebuilding, a respected journal of the building trades, reports that the first wind generators were made by Great Plains farmers whose living-room radios were hooked up to car batteries that they got tired of lugging into town to be recharged so the farmers could listen to “the Clicquot Club Eskimos, the Ipana Troubadours, or WLS’s National Barn Dance.” So they mounted homemade propellers onto car generators, stuck them on a pole, and wired them to their radio batteries.

Other entrepreneurs sensed more opportunities. In 1930, the Jacobs Wind Electric Company opened its first factory in Minneapolis. Eventually, more than 20 companies were making wind generators. Ever frugal farmers, faced with scarcer funds, soon hooked up the wind generators to their oil-based farm electric plants to save fuel, creating the first hybrid generators.

But then Congress passed the first Rural Electrification Act in 1936, effectively killing the nascent off-the-grid power generating industry. As Toepfer argues, “In a monumental act of irrationality, justifiable only by a lack of knowledge or understanding, the federal government decided to do what no investor-owned utility would even begin to consider doing, extending the central station wires from the major urban centers to every rural and remote part of the nation.”

According to the stipulations of the Rural Electrification Administration, hookups performed under its aegis required the removal or destruction of wind and oil-based farm electric systems. The rationale for this misguided policy was that the only way to increase profitability for regulated monopolies with government-fixed prices was to increase demand, and this was most expedient method of reducing REA subsidies to electric utilities.

The REA doubtless improved the lives of millions of Americans. But Toepfer argues that for the $210 million that the government spent under the REA act, it could have provided every electricity-deprived homestead with a farm electric plant and a wind generator, and still not have spent all its money. Although there is no question that the REA supplied a much greater amount of power than the basic, self-reliant technology that was just getting off the ground, Fine Homebuilding opines that “we put all our eggs in one energy basket, committing the country to an inefficient electric grid, sanctioning tremendous environmental damage in the process, and squelching what could have been an enormous start for alternative energy."

Instead, 90 years later, the federal government’s industrial and energy policies see fit to reverse course and channel taxpayer funds into the same industries that it once saw fit to destroy. Go figure.




Share This


Cronies Forever — Dude!

 | 

In a recent reflection, I noted a number of instances of what is fairly clearly corruption on the part of this Administration. (I was actually adding to a list of instances first given by the Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carrey).

But — such is my declining memory in my declining years — I missed a particularly egregious example of Obama’s Chicago School of Economics (which is definitely not to be confused with the Chicago School of Friedman and his co-workers).

The signature bill for which Obama will be remembered (or cursed) is his healthcare act, the eponymous Obamacare. One of the provisions of this monstrosity is the requirement that all healthcare plans must raise their annual limits to at least $750,000. (In 2012, that minimum allowable limit rises to $1.25 million; it then rises to $2 million in 2013.) Naturally, this requirement forces companies whose employee insurance has lower limits to raise them and thus pay higher premiums, or to cancel their employee health plans. The only way not to obey it is to go hat in hand to the Department of Health and Human Services — run by the Obama regime, remember — and get a waiver, which the HHS Department will grant or deny, as it sees fit.

The number of these waivers has been rising rapidly, with well over 700 companies and unions now having obtained them. And, behold! An amazing pattern is emerging about who gets the coveted waivers: disproportionately, they seem to be going to the regime’s supporters.

To be precise, as David Freddoso documents, 40% of the workers affected are in union plans. (In fact, of the 14.6 million unionized workers in this country, nearly a million are now conveniently exempt from the provisions.) But do I have to add that these unions are all huge donors to Democratic campaign coffers in general and Obama’s coffers in particular?

And I’m willing to bet that of the companies that got exemptions, a large percentage have also contributed to Democratic political campaigns.

That’s Obama’s Chicago School of Economics, or what I call neo-socialism. The regime doesn’t actually own all major businesses, but it controls them tightly and exacts tribute from them. More succinctly, it’s “play for pay, the Chicago way”!




Share This


A New Record of Folly

 | 

A new report that hasn’t gotten much play in the afterglow of President Obama’s state of the union address was the Congressional Budget Office estimate for the budget deficit this year. The CBO estimates that the deficit will hit a new record of $1.5 trillion. And it projects that the 2012 deficit will be $1.1 trillion. Even though this will be the third year of trillion-buck-plus deficits, and it will top last year’s record-setting deficit of $1.4 trillion, no doubt Obama will continue to blame Bush (whose largest deficit was a little over $400 billion in 2008). But that rhetorical trope is working less and less well for Obama.

Obama seems now to be aware that the populace is becoming increasingly alarmed at these unprecedented budget deficits. His speech proposed a meager deficit reduction — about $400 billion over ten years.

The big question is how much stomach the Republicans have to push for steeper cuts. The public is now aware of the problem but is still fiscally incontinent: it favors cutting the budget generally but opposes cutting specific popular programs. Even Tea Party members typically support the major entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) that are metastasizing most rapidly.

There are slight signs that the Republicans may strap on some stones and step up to the plate. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has once again proposed a balanced budget amendment, stronger than the amendment that failed by one vote in the Senate 14 years ago. Hatch’s version would require a two-thirds majority for Congress to raise taxes. But while a dozen Republican senators have signed on, no Democrats have, indicating that this has little chance of passing.

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has raised the deficit issue in a different way. He has asked the administration to provide actual figures on the drop in offshore drilling revenue collected by the federal government. That information would show us just how much the Obama slowdown of offshore drilling has and will cost the government in revenues, and hence added to the deficit. One calculation puts the amount of lost revenue due to lower production in the Gulf at about $3.7 million a day.

But most interesting is the legislation introduced by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) that would cut the deficit by $2.5 trillion over ten years. Some of the savings would come from the elimination of a number of programs and agencies, such as the US Agency for International Development (savings: $1.39 billion a year) and from cutting the subsidies of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting ($445 million a year), Amtrak ($1.5 billion a year), and high-speed rail ($2.5 billion a year). But most of the savings would come from rolling back all non-defense discretionary spending to 2006 levels across the board, and keeping it there until 2021.

It is unlikely that this proposal will even come to a vote in the Senate, much less be signed into law by Obama. Even if it did, as exemplary as it is, it would not address the real threat, which is the “Entitlement Explosion” — the ballooning costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, costs that are going to drive the country’s economy to the wall as the Baby Boomers quite predictably age, retire, and sicken. In fact, the CBO just reported that this year Social Security will run a deficit of $45 billion (or $130 billion, if the cut in payroll taxes is included), and will continue to run deficits until the bogus “trust fund” is exhausted in 2037. As late as last year, please note, Social Security was projected to run surpluses until 2016.

The entitlement programs are what really endanger the country (and I haven’t even mentioned the state employee pension fund liabilities). The American people haven’t yet reached what I call the public-choice tipping point, the point at which a problem becomes so large that it is no longer rational for the average citizen to be ignorant of it. So the Republicans may do a little by way of deficit reduction, but I wouldn’t hold out hope that they will do a lot — the public isn’t there quite yet.

Give it a few more years, and a bout of high inflation . . . and that may finally do the trick. By then, of course, the economy will be in ruins. Rational ignorance is such a bitch, isn’t it?




Share This


Shot — Countershot

 | 

Four years ago, a Chicago real estate agent by the name of John Maloof discovered a large collection of candid “street” photographs taken in the 1950s and 1960s by a Chicago nanny named Vivian Maier. Helped by the internet and a carefully calculated public release, Maier’s work is now attracting tremendous popular interest, catching the eyes of both scholars and photographers.

I first encountered Maier’s work while searching the web for articles on photography and photographic equipment, as is my habit. Upon finding a blog with Maier’s work and self-portraits prominently displayed, my first thought was, “These photos look like they were taken by the world-famous Diane Arbus."

Granted, I'm no expert on Arbus’ photography, but I've heard things about it that always return to the words “surreal” and “weird” as a way of describing its peculiar quality. Beyond simply the strange appearance of many of her subjects, I guess it's a kind of instantaneousness in her photos that makes them appealing, something about how life can start to look strangely discordant when chopped into little temporal slices by the click of a shutter. That weirdness is certainly there in Maier's work, too. Often, Maier’s style — resulting from her close proximity to her subjects and the “avant-garde” timing and framing of her shots — seems nearly identical to that of Arbus.

It takes a kind of brusqueness and self-driven ability to get past strangers’ personal barriers and produce this kind of photo, an attitude somewhere between the “interested observer” and the “invader of privacy.” It's a psychological barrier that I struggle with, as do many other photographers. In my copy of “The Honeywell Pentax Way” (a 1966 guidebook intended for amateur users of Pentax 35mm single-lens-reflex cameras), the author advises photographers not to wait until a scene is devoid of human content, but to shoot pictures of people “without hesitation . . . [I]f they object, tip your hat and smile.”

The only times I've been able to break that barrier are when I’ve been shooting photographs of political protests or street scenes in foreign countries. In both cases, the barrier is easy to cross. Usually, no one cares about what you’re shooting (or even notices that you’re doing it). As for photographs taken in foreign parts, a practitioner of “subaltern” theory would say that tourists are simply practicing the “hegemony of the foreigner” when they snap a picture. Take the theory for what it’s worth; I’ve never paused long enough behind the camera to ask myself, “Am I being hegemonic?” Whether that question ever crossed Arbus’ or Maier’s mind, we may never know. If it did, it wouldn’t have helped them break any barriers, personal or artistic.

Whenever I think about their kind of photography, I remember an incident that took place when I happened to be on the other side of the camera, the subject side. My family and I were taking a trip to Death Valley and Las Vegas on one of those quirky tours run by a Chinese travel agency, and tailored specifically for Chinese wallets and efficiency — that is, we were given only 15 minutes per scenic vista, were housed in cheap hotels that reeked of equally cheap cigarettes, ate third-rate buffets for almost every meal, and were herded on and off the bus like cattle.

At one buffet stop — and these were all Chinese buffets — we were turned out of the bus in some Nevada country town, approximately in the middle of nowhere. We were waiting outside while the guide went in to secure tables, when a scrawny, dark-haired teenager with inverted baseball cap suddenly glided up to us on his skateboard. He produced a Pentax 35mm film camera with a 50mm lens, of the type ordinarily used by high school photo students and starving artists. He started to take pictures of us, moving down the line of tourists, all of whom gawked back at him. Watching him snap away, I realized that if I were in his position, and didn’t have the embarrassment I usually have about photographing strangers, I might have taken the same pictures. And it was a real Diane Arbus moment — a bunch of Asian tourists waiting outside a run-down buffet, in an equally run-down strip mall with an otherwise deserted parking lot.Weirdness and discord!

In this case, however, the subjects resisted — at least some of them. When the teenager skated up to my family and started to photograph us from close range, my dad bristled. “Don't give that punk the benefit of a smile,” he said in Chinese. We all scowled at the kid — but he didn't let up. He just snapped and grinned maniacally at us (I suppose that’s what Arbus looked like, when she was working) until he skated away. I imagine that somewhere, in some art gallery, there is now hanging a beautiful black and white print of us, an angry-looking family of Chinese tourists waiting impatiently outside a country town buffet. The photograph is probably entitled “Untitled No. 4,” or “The Visitors,” and the teenager has made a lot of money out of it. One might say that he, Arbus, and Maier were all cut from the same cloth — or perhaps printed from the same negative.

But were they? I think not. As photographers and persons known or unknown, they were all individuals in their own right, for better or for worse. After all, there is “human content” on both sides of the lens.




Share This


Being Green Is Not a Sign of Health

 | 

There are two new reports in the Wall Street Journal about flops in the green energy movement — further illustrations of how much hype there is in it.

The first (Jan. 19) reveals that the vaunted new “amazingly energy efficient,” compact fluorescent light bulbs aren’t so energy efficient after all.

Pushing the hapless consumer to replace incandescent bulbs with CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) has been the received wisdom among lawmakers for years, and no more so than in California, the ever-green state. California’s utilities alone spent $548 million over the past seven years in CFL subsidies. In fact, California utilities have subsidized over 100 million CFLs since 2006. And on the first of this year, the state started phasing out incandescent bulb sales.

Of course, when I say that the California utilities have been subsidizing the CFLs, I really should say that the aforementioned hapless consumers have been doing so, because all the subsidy money — about $2.70 out of the actual $4.00 cost of the CFL, i.e., more than two thirds of the actual cost — is paid by the consumer in the form of higher utility rates.

Naturally, the rest of the country — and, for that matter, the world — is set to follow California’s lead on CFLs. A federal law effective January 1 of next year will require a 28% step-up in efficiency for incandescent bulbs, and bans them outright by 2014. One consequence of this federal policy — unintended, perhaps, but none the less foreseeable — is that the last US plant making incandescent bulbs has been shut down, and China (which now makes all the CFLs) has seen even more of a jobs expansion, and is able to buy even more of our debt.

The UN is also pushing CFLs to help solve global warming, estimating that about 8% of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide are caused by lighting. The World Bank has been funding the distribution of CFLs in poorer nations. Last year, for example, Bangladesh gave away five million World Bank funded CFLs in one day.

But now — surprise! — California has discovered that the actual energy savings of switching to CFLs were nowhere near what was originally estimated. Pacific Gas and Electric, which in 2006 set up the biggest subsidy fund for CFLs, found that its actual savings from the CFL program were collectively about 450 million kilowatt hours, which is only about one-fourth of the original estimate.

There are several reasons for the fact the switch to CFLs hasn’t lived up to expectations. First, not as many of the heavily subsidized CFLs were sold as originally estimated. PG & E doesn’t say why, but I will hazard a guess, based on personal experience. Many consumers dislike the light produced by CFLs, which they find dimmer or more artificial in its effect. Also, many complain that lights create static in AM radio reception. In a free market (i.e., one that, among other things, contains no subsidies), it is likely that few consumers would want to switch.

Surprise! — California has discovered that the actual energy savings of switching to compact fluorescent lamps were nowhere near what was originally estimated.

Second, the useful life of the CFLs is less than 70% of original estimates. Amazingly, the estimates were based on tests that didn’t factor in the actual frequency with which consumers turn them on and off. CFLs burn out more quickly the more often they are turned on and off than do the old incandescent bulbs.

Not mentioned in the story is the fact that CFLs contain mercury, and so are supposed to be specially disposed of (which presents an added cost to the consumer in time, money, and energy). The alternative is for the consumer to throw them out in the regular trash, making toxic waste sites out of ordinary trash dumps, with future clean-up costs of God only knows what.

The second Journal story (Jan. 18) reports that Evergreen Solar has closed its Massachusetts plant and laid off all the workers there.

This is deliciously ironic. Evergreen Solar was the darling of Massachusetts. Governor Deval Patrick, devout green and all-around Obama Mini-Me, gave Evergreen a package of $58 million in tax incentives, grants, and other handouts to open a solar panel plant there. In doing so, he simply ignored Evergreen’s lousy track record — a record of losing nearly $700 million bucks in its short life (its IPO was in 2000), despite lavish subsidies from federal and state governments.

Now Evergreen is outsourcing its operations, blaming competition with China, and whining like a bitchslapped baby about China’s subsidies of its solar energy and its lower labor costs. But Evergreen has itself sucked up ludicrously lavish subsidies, and it knew all along about China’s labor rates compared to Massachusetts’.

So Patrick winds up looking like a complete ass, and the taxpayers of Massachusetts wind up eating a massive loss.

But that’s not all. Near the end of last year, the Journal (Dec. 20) revealed still another case of American crony capitalism, of the green sort. It turns out that the wind industry — aptly dubbed “Big Wind” — copped a one-year, $3 billion extension of government support for wind power. It was part of the end-of-2010 tax deal.

Originally, this government subsidy was a feature of the infamous 2008 stimulus bill, under which taxpayers were forced to cover 30% of the costs of wind power projects. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) begged for the subsequent bailout, because without it 20,000 wind power jobs would be lost (one-fourth of all such jobs in America). But despite the billions in subsidies, Big Wind is sucking wind; its allure is dropping like a stone. The AWEA’s own figures show a 72% decline in wind turbine installations from 2009, down to the lowest since 2006.

Besides trying to make the 30% subsidy(!) permanent, the AWEA is pushing for a national “renewable energy” mandate that will force utilities to buy a large chunk of the power they sell from renewable sources (mainly solar and wind), irrespective of the fact that the price of renewable energy is sky high. The association has gotten more than half the states to enact such mandates, with higher energy bills for consumers as the result. Not surprisingly, Big Wind is also pushing the EPA to make energy from fossil fuels vastly more costly.

According to the federal government’s own figures, wind and solar take 20 times the subsidy to produce electricity than do coal and natural gas. So you can see why Big Wind keeps blowing smoke up the public’s rear about the fabulous future of renewable energy. You can also see why Big Wind is such a big contributor to the campaign coffers of Democratic politicians. They are the only ones who keep this outrageous boondoggle awash in money.

Meanwhile, the promises of green energy look more and more hollow, every day.




Share This


At Least Some People Get It

 | 

The Obama administration continues to scratch its collective head over what to do about creating jobs. After the disastrous failure of the numerous mega-billion-buck bailouts intended to lower the unemployment rate, even the now happily departed lame-duck Congress refused to pass another massive pork bomb. The Obamanistas, devoted Keynesians all, have pushed through more spending more quickly than any other administration in history. The national debt, which stood at $13 trillion on June 2, 2010, closed the year at $14 trillion. So we have spent beyond the dreams of Keynes’ avarice, and the unemployment rate still hovers near 10%.

Meanwhile, up in the Great White North, our Canadian friends have shown the way. For the fourth year in a row, they are lowering their federal corporate tax rate. It has just been dropped to 16.5%. This is less than half the American federal rate of 35%. Amazing, considering that Canada is sometimes supposed to be the pure welfare state, while we are the pure capitalist one.

And it won’t stop there. In 2012, the Canadian federal rate will drop to 15%, bringing the combined federal and provincial rate on businesses to about 25%. Back in 2000, the combined Canadian corporate income tax rate was 42.6%, so the decline has been dramatic.

Besides cutting the corporate tax rate, the Canadian government has eliminated corporate surtaxes as well as levies on capital.

All these incentives, combined with Canada’s healthy financial sector — Canada never created crazy government agencies to encourage and then purchase bad mortgages (it apparently grasps the concept of moral hazard!) — are enticing increased business investment. Spectra Energy of Houston, for example, has decided to invest $2 billion in Canadian energy and infrastructure projects. The Citco Group, a financial firm, has decided to open its only North American bank in Canada. And the big accounting firm KMPG has moved many of its operations to Canada.

American corporate taxes remain the second highest in the industrialized world. Our competitors to the north have grasped the idea that to tax an activity is to deter it. The Canadians obviously want more business, not less. And the reason they want more is that they grasp the fact that business creates jobs.




Share This


Are You Kidding?

 | 

Jonathan Alter, a leading Obama sycophant, appeared on a talk show recently with Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney. The topic turned to a comment made by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who observed that Obama’s administration is “one of the most corrupt administrations ever.” Issa’s claim sent Alter into an apoplectically angry rant, saying there was “zero” evidence of corruption.

To Alter’s evident surprise, Carney immediately demurred, incredulous that Alter couldn’t see any evidence. While Carney said that Issa’s comments were “hyperbolic,” he gave a few choice illustrations, and later listed a few more on the Examiner’s website. Carney’s list included the following:

1. Ex-Google lobbyist Andrew McLaughlin, employed by the White House as a tech policy specialist, chatting with Google lobbyists about the rules governing “Net Neutrality,” from which Google stands to gain. (Carney’s blog doesn’t mention it, but Google gave lavishly to the Obama campaign.)

2. A former Goldman Sachs lobbyist took the job of the Treasury Department’s Chief of Staff within nine months of his Goldman employment. (Again, we can add that upper-level management at Goldman Sachs was a big contributor to Obama’s coffers.)

3. Former H&R Block CEO Mark Ernst was hired by Obama to help the IRS write new regulations on tax preparation (which Block subsequently endorsed, because it stands to benefit from them).

4. Obama officials have met “off-campus” repeatedly in order to dodge the Presidential Records Act.

5. When AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin started investigating Obama’s friend and supporter Kevin Johnson, Walpin was summarily fired.

6. In the Obama-orchestrated Chrysler bankruptcy, the UAW was given the bulk of the stock in the new company (while the secured creditors were burned).  Naturally, the UAW was a big contributor to Obama’s campaign.

As good as Carney’s list is, it only scratches the surface. Here are a few more illustrations:

7. Besides the crony bankruptcy deal that gave the bulk of the stock in the new company to the UAW, there was a similar deal that gave a big chunk of the new GM stock to the UAW.

8. Moreover, in the recent IPO, the feds held onto the public’s shares while the UAW was allowed to dump its own. This ensured that the UAW pension fund would be made whole.

9. ACORN, the bogus “community service” group for which Obama was counsel and which worked so hard to register voters (even fictional ones) on Obama’s behalf, received lavish amounts of “stimulus” money.

10. When Obama was campaigning for Democrats in the last election, he doled out stimulus money in the states he visited (especially Nevada). Indeed, the stimulus fund was a grab-bag of cash for Obama’s backers. A disproportionate share of the money was spent in precisely those states that supported Obama.

As to whether Issa’s statement was “hyperbolic,” I don’t think so. The Obama administration has racked up a lot of corruption in its two years in office. If it isn’t one of the most corrupt administrations in history, it is surely on track to become so.




Share This


The Government's "Green" Jobs

 | 

Jonathan A. Lester, president of Continental Economics Inc., has written an insightful critique of artificial stimulus to wind power and the like (“Gresham’s Law of Green Energy,” in the Cato Institute’s journal Regulation, Winter 2010–2011, pp. 12–18). Like similar critiques, however, it could benefit from better placement of emphasis.

Lester laments the wasteful diversion of resources into uses that would otherwise not pay (waste, that is, barring untypically sound “externality” arguments). Furthermore, as for jobs created by subsidy- or regulation-based spending on green energy, the money so spent would have to come from somewhere. It would necessarily be diverted from spending on other public or private activities, where jobs otherwise created or maintained would be lost.

Such arguments put too much emphasis on spending itself relative to the allocation of real resources, including labor. Would the workers newly drawn into green jobs come from elsewhere, or would they have otherwise remained unemployed? Do green subsidies, tax breaks, and regulations really remedy economy-wide unemployment exceeding the frictional unemployment of normal times?

Unemployment in a recession reflects discoordination. Mutually advantageous transactions among workers, employers, and consumers are somehow frustrated. That is what needs attention. Putting emphasis on spending and its destinations is superficial. As W.H. Hutt used to say, spending is a measure of transactions accomplished; it is not what drives transactions.

Now, what impedes transactions in a recession? Usually or often it is a deficient quantity of money in relation to desires to hold it at the prevailing price and wage level. Sometimes (as now, apparently) the demand to hold money has increased, even if only passively or by default, because individuals and firms are especially uncertain about what transactions would be worthwhile. Adding to the usual uncertainty about business is uncertainty about taxation, government deficits and debt, complicated and costly regulations, and other government interventions, including unintended consequences of earlier ones.  This is what needs attention, not the allocation of spending between green and other employments.

Recession is not something to be remedied by shifting resources around. Besides channeling resources into relatively inefficient uses, artificially favoring green energy obscures the true nature of recession.




Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2013 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.