Senate Climate Control Legislation

I do not support the current Senate bill nor the prior House of Representative’s bill to reduce greenhouse emissions. My opposition is based on actual science not political science. Read on if you are interested in the scientific basis; count the vote if you are only interested in politics.

When my daughter was five, she asked me how the trees flapped their leaves to make the wind blow. She taught me a very valuable lesson: correlation does not mean cause. And so it is with CO2 and global warming. Perhaps it is a lesson that the congress of the United States needs to learn.

As the senate considers fast-tracking a climate bill that will require a 20% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 – at an unstated cost to the taxpayer and to our economy – one should ask some fundamental questions about the cause of “global warming,” before taking action. Otherwise, the economic consequences will be more disastrous than the government’s mandate to supplement gasoline with ethanol, providing farmers with economic incentives to allocate up to 30% of the United States arable land to produce less than 50 gallons of fuel per acre. As a result, food prices have risen and actual vehicle miles per gallon have decreased, because ethanol does not contain the same higher heating value (energy content) as carbon-based fuels.

My global warming conclusions are supported by a scientific study, Increased Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by Robinson, A.B., et al, reviewed and endorsed by more than 9,000 Ph.D.s (http://www.petitionproject.org/) , and the testimony of David Evans, the scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto protocol (http://mises.org/story/2571 and http://mises.org/story/2795).

The conclusion of the Robinson research is that the earth is warming at a rate of 0.5 degrees Centigrade per 100 years, that this trend is naturally occurring, as the earth recovers from what is referred to as the Little Ice Age, and is driven by solar radiation, not man-made CO2 production. The current warming trend can be traced to about 1800. The researchers conclude that over the last 3,000 years, the earth’s temperature has varied within a 3 degree Celsius range. Arctic temperature variation correlates strongly with solar activity and not with world hydrocarbon use.

In fact, the study concludes that overall the climate has improved. The number of tornados has decreased, the number of hurricanes has remained constant, and rainfall has increased. During the past 50 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased 22%, much of that due to human activity, but no correlation exists between temperature increase and carbon dioxide production. In fact the major effect has been to increase plant growth and biological diversity (that is, a positive effect).

Van Go ... Van Gone

Letter to the Editor, Virginian Pilot, September 7, 2009

In your September 7, 2009, article “Critics led Obama adviser to resign, he says,” you selectively quote facts to infer that the principal reasons “conservatives” called for Van Jones’ resignation as the “Green Jobs Czar” was his inadvertent signature on a “9/11 Truther” petition and his public statement that Republicans are “A—holes.” Nothing could be further from the “truth.” Being called names does not offend this conservative: I have come to expect it from the left. What offends me about Jones are facts that you do not report in your paper: he is a self avowed Communist, who was selected and vetted solely by the Obama administration and not the congress, operates outside the purview of congressional oversight, and controls $30B in public funding.

In 1992, Jones was quoted as saying, “In jail I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ’This is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people, I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary … I was a rowdy nationalist, on April 28 and then the verdicts came down on April 29. By August, I was a communist.” In 2005 he said, “ I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of the radical ends.” His four year old son is named after a militant Marxist guerilla. This is not a person I, or any American, should want advising the President, unanswerable to Congress, and controlling a $30B budget.

President Obama said during his campaign that if one wanted to know how he would govern to examine those to whom he would look for advice. Well, I did, and the picture is not pretty. Van Jones is one of many in his cadre of 37+ “Czars” who have questionable ties to socialist, Marxist, Communist ideology and organizations.

Reframing the Health Care Debate

An Open Letter to the President, Congressman Nye, Senator Webb, and Senator Warner

Nancy Pelosi has recently indicated she may be willing to substitute a "trigger" in the healthcare legislation in place of a binding requirement for a "public option." Her "thinking," if you want to call it that, is to give insurance companies time to drive costs down or else the public option will be implemented. The fallacy of this argument is that the "trigger" levels can never be met by insurance companies, without a concomitant elimination of layers of regulation and artificial Medicare fee schedules, set by government and to which private insurance rates are tied. In fact, I believe her strategy is to ADD regulation and price controls, which would in effect "trigger" the public option.

Let this citizen be clear. Reframing this debate by using "words that work" phraseology or substituting new concepts of "triggers" and "co-ops" for the concept of a public option will not work and do not change the underlying facts of the debate. I do not want out of control government managing another one-sixth of the economy through social engineering. Congress would be better off spending its time figuring out how to pay for the debt it has incurred and scaling back the programs that are driving that debt: inefficient, corrupt, and in most cases, ineffective government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and VA run healthcare (among many others).

My freedom is more important to me than my health, which I seem to be managing just fine on my own because I OWN IT. It is unfortunate that I was not given the option to own and manage my own "social security" (viz., a private option to Social Security, an ironic concept, don't you think). If I had been given that option, I would have three times the amount of money I expect to receive from Social Security, under present forecasts. Unfortunately, the government did not invest that money, they traded it for IOUs to China and spent it on programs like the National Endowment of the Arts, which the administration is now trying to co-opt into producing art, music, and slogans, to market its policies. Why should I believe that "public" health care should turn out differently?

In closing, I recommend that you obtain a copy of Thomas Sowell's book, Basic Economics, AND READ IT. Apparently, either Congress does not understand basic free-market economics or they choose to ignore it in an attempt to "remake" America in the image of European socialism.

Where Have All The Marxists Gone?

An Open Letter to Senators Webb and Warner and

Congressman Nye

I have extensively studied the background of Mark Lloyd, who was recently hired to be FCC Chief Diversity Officer, a new position at that agency. It is clear to me, based on the facts, that he is a committed Marxist -- at best -- and should not be allowed to serve in this position. I request that you investigate his qualifications and fitness to serve in this position, including conduct of a thorough FBI Background Check.

Mr. Lloyd has proposed that private broadcasters pay licensing fees equal to 100% of their operating budget, which would then be used to fund National Public Radio, the employer of people like Bill Moyer, a disciple of Herbert Marcuse (see http://www.marcuse.org/: he is listed on this site). Marcuse was a disciple of the Frankfurt School, the author of Critical Theory, the basis of Marxist Cultural Revolution. If private broadcasters do not meet Lloyd’s definition of “diversity,” they can be fined up to $250 million.

His appointment is ridiculous, and shows how out of touch congress is with the assault on American freedoms and values. Lloyd has similar designs on the Internet.

In an age of 200+ cable channels, 1000s of radio channels, our country is better served by terminating the funding to public radio and let choice and the free market determine what we listen to or watch. In fact, Mr. Lloyd's proposal at best is nothing less than an attempt to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine through the back door. At worst, it is an attempt by the Government to control the media and eliminate first amendment rights.

You have been elected to represent the people. The Constitution, which you do not seem to understand, is about personal freedom not government control. Your authority is derived from the people: not the other way round. Because you do not seem to understand this concept, I will do everything in my power to make sure it is driven home in the next election cycle.

Healthcare -- An Executive Summary

The following was sent to me by Dave Leather, a personal friend, who reports he received it from a friend who voted for Obama.

"Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it and whose members will be exempt from it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke."

Elections matter.

Congressman Nye's Stealth Town Hall Meeting

The following is an open letter to Congressman Glenn Nye (D-VA). I think it is self explanatory.

Dear Congressman Nye:

I was hoping that you would have a town hall meeting during August in Virginia Beach to discuss healthcare. After reviewing your online calendar, it was apparent this was not in the cards. The closest event was office hours at Little Creek, on August 17, at the Base Exchange. As a civilian, I am sure that I would not be allowed on base. So, I just chalked this up to the fact you wished to duck and cover on probably the most important domestic issue facing the country -- Healthcare Reform, Health Insurance Reform, or whatever euphemistic title the democratically controlled congress is using today.

So it was with surprise, that I learned that you have scheduled a breakfast get together with your democratic supporters on August 22 at Mom's Kitchen / Scandal's Lounge (how appropriate!) to entertain their questions on HR 3200. As a conservative, I have been following your votes carefully and have actually been somewhat impressed with your fiscally conservative position on many issues; but, after this duck and cover, you have lost all credibility with me.

I will keep in touch with your office and make a point to attend a future, local public event, if you decide to come out of hiding.

Regressive Taxation With Progressive Representation

The following allegory describing the inequity and fragileness of the current progressive tax system was sent to me via e-mail. It has been attributed to various authors, including various economic professors all of whom have denied authorship. Even so, when questioned, none of the economists have denied the truth of the underlying argument. As summarized in the e-mail: “For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.”

The underlying assumption of this allegory is that 40% of Americans pay NO federal income tax. This is an indisputable fact: some may argue that the number is as high as 47%. The remaining federal taxpayers progressively pay the income tax, with the top ten percent paying approximately 60% of the total income tax dollars paid to the federal treasury. It is true that ALL taxpayers pay payroll taxes, which cover THEIR PORTION OF social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the federal portion of unemployment. THAT SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH THE FACT THAT ONLY 53% TO 60% OF TAXPAYERS PAY THE INCOME TAX WHICH FUNDS EVERYTHING ELSE THAT RUNS THE COUNTRY.

The allegory says it all:

Suppose that every day, the same ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.The fifth would pay $1.The sixth would pay $3.The seventh would pay $7.The eighth would pay $12.The ninth would pay $18.The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving s). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10'.

'Yeah, that's right,a exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got'

'That's true' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.