CARB Part 2

One of the biggest so-called benefits of the CARB plan is the creation of jobs and industry. Let us all be crystal clear that this is a cost, not a benefit, of the CARB plan. Imagine if your wife told you she was implementing a plan to make life better in your household. She tells you further, that this plan entails employing an army of domestics and other household workers. And when she shows you her cost-benefit analysis you see that she counted the jobs she created as a benefit to you! Do you say: "Great, honey! The benefits outweigh the costs, lets do it!" Or do you say: "Honey! We can't afford all these people!" If you are the policy makers at CARB, you go with the former. If you are a sensible person you go with the latter.
It just seems so nuts that a government agency says: our regulations are so great that it will take thousands of workers and an entire industry to implement it and it will cost you nothing! But people keep buying this line.

California Air Resources Board aka the Climate Politburo

I will be doing an extended critique of the Ca Air Resources Board (CARB) "Draft Scoping Plan" for fighting the phantom menace of global warming.

CARB claims that their proposed regs will provide net benefits to the economy, a claim I find ridiculous on its face as a letter to the LA Times expresses. A true cost benefit of any regulations like they are proposing will certainly have costs outweighing benefits, especially since the costs are imposed on the private sector. And what might be the benefit of such regulations? I, of course, believe there will be zero benefit, except to lawyers, regulators and eco-fascists. But, just for the hell of it, let's see what CARB thinks will be the benefits in its initial study (they will be releasing more info, including hard data, to support their outlandish contentions over the summer (while it's hot--surprise!):

• Job creation in the emerging "greentech" industry (p. 50)

These jobs are a cost, not a benefit!

• Other economic benefits from the "greentech" industry similar to what occurred with the computer industry (p. 50)

We'll see if this prophecy comes true, but again spending in this area should be counted as a cost.

• "Fuel diversity"--p. 50

Not sure what's stopping people from introducing new fuels now--if they are efficient products the makers should be richer than Warren Buffet.

• Influencing "the regional and national debate about how to address climate change."--p.50

This is a benefit if the whole program is a benefit, which it isn't, so it isn't.

• "Reduce statewide NOx, VOC and PM emissions" - p.51

Completely ignores the cost to the producers and sellers of these items.

• "The impact of the Scoping Plan measures on the state economy is likely to be overall positive, but very small relative to expected growth." (emphasis mine)--p. 51

Just a completely outlandish statement unsupported by any data or logic.

• "These estimates indicated that the overall savings from improved efficiency and developing alternatives to petroleum will on the whole outweigh the costs." -p 52

So...improving efficiency and developing alternatives to petroleum have no costs! Not bloody likely!

• "...any costs associated with the introduction of greenhouse gas reduction policies will have relatively little impact on continued economic growth."--p. 53

If this means that economic growth will continue after the regulations are imposed than I would say this is irrelevant.Most likely the economy will grow. The question is how much will growth slow due to these regulations. If they are saying there will be relatively little impact on growth I guess it depends on what they mean by "relatively". Relative to what? Maybe relative to Stalin's crushing of the peasants' economy in Ukraine.

• Increased energy costs will be offset by more energy efficient cars and homes p.53

Again, more energy efficiency has no cost? And why should the government know better than consumers and businesses about how to spend their own money?

• "...vehicle greenhouse gas standards increase the efficiency of cars and trucks, the fuel savings put money directly into consumers' hands to spend on additional goods and services--causing increased economic activity in California." p. 53-54

They spend the money on fuel or "additional goods and services. Spending money on fuel doesn't count as increased economic activity but spending "on additional goods and services" does? This proposition is absurdly illogical.

• "...taking action sooner rather than later..." will increase benefits and decrease costs--p. 54

But maybe waiting to act or not acting at all. After all, money in the future is worth less than money now. They don't know if this is true or not, they're just guessing.

• Regulation "will generate investments in climate change emissions reductions..."- p. 54, "creates new businesses and new jobs"--p. 55

How many times will we have to say that jobs and investment are a COST, not a BENEFIT?!

• "Much of the economic benefits of greenhouse gas emission reductions is from reduced spending on energy."--p. 54

I guess this is great, unless you work in the energy business--but who cares about them? What might be a benefit to some is a cost to others, so it cannot be counted as a straight-up benefit.

• "Sucessful California-based providers of energy efficiency technologies can capture a share of that rapidly growing export market, estimated at 170 billion."--p. 55

I'm not clear on what prevents entrepreneurs doing this now and why CARBs regulations are necessary to make it happen.

• "Between 1990 and 2006, California green technology businesses grew 84 percent, adding more than 10,000 jobs to the economy."--p.55

EEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! Again, these jobs are a COST!! Please get this straight!!!

• "Where applicable and to the extent feasible, ARB will direct public and private investment toward the most disadvantaged communities in our implementation of the climate change program."--p.55

And as icing on the cake the so-called benefits will be used to bribe disadvantaged folks to vote Democrat. How can such a program of affirmative action possibly increase the costs of such a wide ranging regulatory structure? (sarcasm)

Stochastic Phenomena Explained!

After last Friday's sell-off on Wall Street I said to the wife as we lay down to sleep--"The stock market will go up on Monday." Now, I know the stock market has to go up or down so I had a 50-50 chance of being right. And it is more likely to go up after such tumbles as people take advantage of bargain basement buying opportunities, so it was unlikely I'd be wrong.

But my reasons for this were the following. After a period of Obama being up in polls following his crushing victory over Clinton, McCain started to close the gap with polls released late on Friday. My reasoning is that, if investors think Obama is going to be elected they are likely to cash out now, while capital gains tax rate stays at 15%. If they think McCain will be elected they are less likely to cash out.

Also, and I haven't checked this but, after a democrat is elected I would expect the stock market to go up as people buy more and sell less due to tax epectations. This effect may be offset by the reality that costs will go up for corporations in the form of greenhouse gas regs and higher corporate taxes. Of course, presidential politics aren't the only factor involved but due to the especially unpredictable nature of future tax costs for investors and corporations it may be a larger factor this year than others.

Boumedienne v Bush

One of the things that drives me nuts about this opinion is the way Napoleon Kennedy extends the constitution to the entire planet. Yes, he tries to narrowly define de facto sovereignty but he fails miserably. The entire planet is de facto US sovereign territory under Anthony "Stalin" Kennedy's decision. What's wrong with that, the candyass liberals among you may ask?

Well, what if another country extended and enforced their laws on us? Or why isn't it just a little insulting to sovereign nations that they are not really sovereign after all? These are the implications of this decision.

It is clear that Ming the Merciless Kennedy fancies himself a world conqueror. Didn't you know that the whole nation-state concept is passe and unconstitutional? In this, he is in unison with liberal democrats for whom the whole idea of America is a little embarrassing, quaint and retrograde. It is good to remember this as the birthday of our nation approaches.

But then again---he did do the right thing in DC v Heller---most likely because in Heller he was also striking down statute--albeit a clearly unconstitutional one.

Barack Hussein Obama is a crypto-Stalinist

He wants to destroy the prosperous bourgeoisie of the United States. Can't turn down your thermostat or drive your SUV and if you do you will end up in a re-education camp.

I'm just making predictions with my sophisticated political climate modeling software--so I can't be wrong!

Reasons I Don't Like Barack Obama

• He's a hard left liberal Senator
• He hangs flags of communist mass-murderers in his campaign offices
• He pals around with domestic terrorists
• He is pro-defeat in Iraq
• His wife has never been proud of the US and I'm guessing he hasn't either
• His foreign policy seems to be all about appeasement which will lead to more US deaths
• He is very pro-abortion, almost to the point of infanticide
• Why does he make a point of not wearing a flag lapel pin?
  
• He has fascist tendencies

More later.......

Suspend Habeas Corpus!!

I am still waiting for President Bush to suspend habeas corpus at Gitmo since five Supreme Court justices insist that Gitmo is sovereign US territory (that should be news to Cuba!) under the nonsensical concept of de facto sovereignty. (I'll let you think about why de facto sovereignty is ridiculous).

"Fire in the Rear"*

Now for a little history:

"[Obama] professed himself a better [patriot] than the Republicans whose fanaticism had provoked this ruinous war. These same Republicans, he continued, were now not fighting for [the country] but for [empire]. And what had they accomplished? 'Let the dead at [Fallujah] and [Baghdad] answer.' The [war] could never be [won]; the only trophies of this war were 'defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchres.....the suspension of habeas corpus, the violation...of freedom of the press and of speech....which have made this country one of the worst despotisms on earth for the past [eight years].' What was the solution? 'Stop fighting. Make an armistice....Withdraw your army from [Iraq].' Start negotiations...."

This passage is actually from the book Battle Cry of Freedom, by James McPherson, page 592. It is actually describing the positions of the justly forgotten Copperhead (anti-war, southern sympathizing politicians--all Democrats) Clement Vallandigham but bears a remarkable similarity to the present day democrat party's foreign policy platform. Vallandigham was eventually arrested for sedition and banished to the confederacy. Can't we do the same for Kucinich, McDermott, et al? Vallandigham ran for Governor of Ohio in absentia but lost in a landslide.


*The chapter this passage comes from, not my recent medical problems!

Suckers!

Great op-ed in the LA Times.

The Democrats are admitting they are a bunch of suckers! So why the hell should we trust them, exactly?

Ignorant Obama

Barack Obama:

"We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership."

This statement is stunningly ignorant, childish & scary. We use energy to be the most productive, comfortable, and peaceful nation on earth. Is Obama suggesting we change this? Is there a correct ratio of population to energy usage? What amount of energy is there in the world? Most of the energy out there exists only through the ingenuity of American industry and whatever we use in the future likely will come the minds of Americans. Don't we pay for what we use? Does Obama want us to reduce our energy consumption and possibly collapse the world economy? Hey, Obama, absolutely, let's all swelter and freeze so that the world economy comes to a grinding halt. And really, what is stopping other countries from using more energy? Nothing, except they have no demand for it yet! Are countries really complaining: "Hey..America is hogging all the energy!". No, they aren't. They are either selling it to us, actively trying to reach our status, or they are Zimbabwe. I think Obama actually has a lot in common with Mugabe. Maybe I'll post on that later.
This is a the kind of ridiculous idea that popped into my head when I was an ignorant little wannabe socialist. I say wannabe because I didn't even know what socialism was really all about--I just knew it was against capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if this particular notion came to Obama courtesy of terrorist William Ayers--after all this is the kind of thing he wanted to kill Americans for.

Some of the Worst Supreme Court Decisions Ever

• Dred Scott
• Roe v Wade
• Miranda v Arizona
• Griswold v Connecticut
• Grutter v Bollinger
• Kelo v New London
  
• Boumediene v Bush!! Yikes--suspend habeas corpus already W!
  

Some of you (hello? is anyone out there?) may agree with what the court decided in these cases but that does not change the fact that the court made the wrong decisions based on the constitution.