An alternate headline for this story:
States Sue Because Gas is Too Cheap
Restrictions on refineries, after all, come with a price on the end product. Ask anyone who's had to pay for a catalytic converter about the hidden cost of efficiency regulations.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, August 25, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The Doppleganger's Political Debate
Ben, he who is very much like me except that he is ardently liberal while I am ardently conservative, would like to have a debate with me about the merits of our views. Especially, I think, as regards our mutual faith in Christ.
I think an important framework for such a discussion has to start with what is agreed upon. I suspect, as I think I've stated soemwhere before, that I believe we probably agree on many things. We agree, broadly, in our theology - in who we regard Jesus to be, on the call on each of us as Christ-followers to obey him in all areas of our lives, and on the authority of the Bible. We agree that as Christians, we are not to give perference to rich and powerful people who we intend to use to leverage ourselves into greater positions of power, but to care in particular for the poor, lowly, forgotten people of the world. We agree that the simplest acts of compassion for these people are acts so incalculably valuable as if they had been rendered to God Himself.
I think, though this is a more general pronouncement, that we both want to see the greatest "good" done for the greatest number of people. We both want to maximise people's welfare across both material and immaterieal dimensions. We want to see justice, freedom, faith, love, and the other great things spread among all people.
The great divergence, I think, is in how we see this best accomplished. To what degree should we attempt to wield the power of government towarsd these ends? To what degree can/should we use the power of government to tax and seize resources to give them to others? Why? Why not?
I will, then, invite Ben to give his opinion on this question: To what degree should we as Christians support or cause our government to take resources from those we deem to have enough, and give it to those we deem as not having enough - both domestically and internationally. If possible, I'd like some bounds on when we should and should not. At what point should we abstain from, or even oppose, the government using its power in that way. Staking out our positions will help set a groundwork for the rest of the discussion.
I think an important framework for such a discussion has to start with what is agreed upon. I suspect, as I think I've stated soemwhere before, that I believe we probably agree on many things. We agree, broadly, in our theology - in who we regard Jesus to be, on the call on each of us as Christ-followers to obey him in all areas of our lives, and on the authority of the Bible. We agree that as Christians, we are not to give perference to rich and powerful people who we intend to use to leverage ourselves into greater positions of power, but to care in particular for the poor, lowly, forgotten people of the world. We agree that the simplest acts of compassion for these people are acts so incalculably valuable as if they had been rendered to God Himself.
I think, though this is a more general pronouncement, that we both want to see the greatest "good" done for the greatest number of people. We both want to maximise people's welfare across both material and immaterieal dimensions. We want to see justice, freedom, faith, love, and the other great things spread among all people.
The great divergence, I think, is in how we see this best accomplished. To what degree should we attempt to wield the power of government towarsd these ends? To what degree can/should we use the power of government to tax and seize resources to give them to others? Why? Why not?
I will, then, invite Ben to give his opinion on this question: To what degree should we as Christians support or cause our government to take resources from those we deem to have enough, and give it to those we deem as not having enough - both domestically and internationally. If possible, I'd like some bounds on when we should and should not. At what point should we abstain from, or even oppose, the government using its power in that way. Staking out our positions will help set a groundwork for the rest of the discussion.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Cause and Effect
Democrats in Congress will have you believe (and according to an opinion poll, their story is widely believed) that profits earned by Exxon (and other large oil companies) is a leading cause of high gas prices. The wailing and gnashing of teeth by Democrats over this is easy enough to find.
What you might not hear is that, while Exxon earned $11.68 billion in net profit in the second quarter of 2008, they paid $32.36 billion in taxes during the same quarter.
If, then, $11 billion in profit is an unconscionable drain on the American people... what is the effect of nearly 3 times as much being paid in taxes? For every dollar in profit Exxon earned, it paid three dollars to the government. And given a roughly 10% profit margin, that means it spent another six dollars on neither taxes nor profit, but simply in the expense of doing business.
So, of costs, taxes, and profit... the smallest share of all (and, therefore, the smallest contributor to high prices of the three broad categories listed) goes to profit.
Total Revenues: $138 billion
Total Costs (including sales and "other" taxes): $116 billion
Total Income Taxes: $10.5 billion
Total Profit: $11.7 billion
For the government that extracts 3 times as much in taxes to wag its finger over the profit that gives Exxon a reason to be in business to begin with... I find it hypocritical, shallow, and alas - all too convincing to the American public.
What you might not hear is that, while Exxon earned $11.68 billion in net profit in the second quarter of 2008, they paid $32.36 billion in taxes during the same quarter.
If, then, $11 billion in profit is an unconscionable drain on the American people... what is the effect of nearly 3 times as much being paid in taxes? For every dollar in profit Exxon earned, it paid three dollars to the government. And given a roughly 10% profit margin, that means it spent another six dollars on neither taxes nor profit, but simply in the expense of doing business.
So, of costs, taxes, and profit... the smallest share of all (and, therefore, the smallest contributor to high prices of the three broad categories listed) goes to profit.
Total Revenues: $138 billion
Total Costs (including sales and "other" taxes): $116 billion
Total Income Taxes: $10.5 billion
Total Profit: $11.7 billion
For the government that extracts 3 times as much in taxes to wag its finger over the profit that gives Exxon a reason to be in business to begin with... I find it hypocritical, shallow, and alas - all too convincing to the American public.
Why Obama Could Spell Disaster
As intelligent as he may be, Senator Obama has turned back to the basest form of vote-buying: elect me and I'll take their money and give it to you.
For him to toss around words like "windfall" without bothering to define what that means is dangerous. The Wall Street Journal puts it much better than I can:
The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.
It's what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.
For him to toss around words like "windfall" without bothering to define what that means is dangerous. The Wall Street Journal puts it much better than I can:
The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.
It's what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Nevada's Republican Party
Seriously? You thought you could just call an executive meeting and pick whatever delegates you like, without any regard to the delegates actually elected with much fanfare earlier this year?
As I understand it, the delegates we elected have to choose the national delegates according to state law. That's not something you can ignore when it's inconvenient. Better to have no delegates than to be "represented" by those chosen with no more than a farcical nod to democracy.
"Disarry" has been used often of the Republicans this election cycle. I think it's totally apt. And I hope the lawsuit against the state Republican party manages to uphold the rule of law, not the rule of whims.
As I understand it, the delegates we elected have to choose the national delegates according to state law. That's not something you can ignore when it's inconvenient. Better to have no delegates than to be "represented" by those chosen with no more than a farcical nod to democracy.
"Disarry" has been used often of the Republicans this election cycle. I think it's totally apt. And I hope the lawsuit against the state Republican party manages to uphold the rule of law, not the rule of whims.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Let no one think
That ranting about the dangers of appointing [insert opposing ideology here] judges to the Supreme Court is something limited to conservatives. My initial reaction upon reading such editorials is to think that the paper tends to laud and defend the judgement of the court when it agrees with their decisions, and simply asserts that the court gets it wrong whenever it disagrees.
I think that shows a brash lack of humility when talking about people who, frankly, know much more about Constitutional Law than the NYT's editorial board.
And it reminds me that I need to have that same humility when talking about experts on a subject that I happen to disagree with. Because a brash lack of humility and being rather opinionated often go hand in hand.
So perhaps a court that manages to upset people on both sides of the political spectrum is actually one that gets it mostly right.
I think that shows a brash lack of humility when talking about people who, frankly, know much more about Constitutional Law than the NYT's editorial board.
And it reminds me that I need to have that same humility when talking about experts on a subject that I happen to disagree with. Because a brash lack of humility and being rather opinionated often go hand in hand.
So perhaps a court that manages to upset people on both sides of the political spectrum is actually one that gets it mostly right.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Treason
I've heard some conservative talk-show-call-in folks throw around that word concerning Democrats who "undermined" the Iraq war.
That's a serious charge, if you really mean it. And for a revealling outside look at what it means to invoke that term in a political context, take a look at Zimbabwe.
That's a serious charge, if you really mean it. And for a revealling outside look at what it means to invoke that term in a political context, take a look at Zimbabwe.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Extraordinary Rendition
This is why I can't support the U.S. intelligence process of extraordinary rendition.
Economics 101
"A procedural showdown is set for Tuesday, and Democrats are likely to run into opposition from Republicans who have resisted any effort to increase taxes on oil companies despite record profits. But with gas now averaging $4 per gallon, Democrats say they can make it tougher on Republicans who stand by the oil industry." -- New York Times
I admit outright that I have no problem with ending special tax breaks for oil companies in light of healthy profits. This is not the same as saying I want to "increase taxes on oil companies," because of a semantic difference in the two phrases. I want oil companies to be on par with other comparably sized companies if their profits are stable and sustainable (which in the current market they are). I don't want special benefits or special punishments.
But for the Democrats to find $4 a gallon gas as a rallying point for eliminating these tax subsidies is baffling to me. The demand for gasoline has been shown to be rather inelastic - an increase in the price by about 100% has only cut demand by less than 5%. This means as price goes up, most people will continue to buy. This means that price increases can more easily be passed on to consumers, because it won't cause a huge drop in demand.
When demand is inelastic, taxes on the suppliers get passed straight through to consumers. The all-but-inevitable result of ending the oil tax subsidies will not be to reduce the profits the oil companies make. It will be to make oil, gas, etc more expensive.
The rallying cry "gas is expensive, so let's tax the people that make it" is silly. I'm in favor of eliminating special benefits the oil companies may receive for the same reason that I'm in favor of slashing and burning agricultural subsidies - I consider it a wasteful use of limited government funds, and bad policy in a time of record deficits.
Concerning the related "we have to invest more money in renewable energy!" suggestions: no, we don't. The beauty of higher, rising prices for oil is that if there is a more economical alternative, there's a lot of profit waiting for the person or company that can develop it. The "but big energy companies will just sit on their ideas to draw higher profit from oil" argument ignores the principle that if company A sits on the idea, it leaves room for company B to jump in.
As soon as a plug-in vehicle - like the upcoming Chevy Volt - can be sold for a price that makes it more efficient than buying a gasoline-powered car, the shift will be on in full force. The novel idea in the Volt is that it has only a 40-mile range on an overnight charge... but it has a gasoline engine which is tied straight to the battery to extend that range. Unlike current dual-drive hybrids, which use a gasoline engine to move the car and an electric engine to move the car (much more complex), the Volt uses the gas engine - running at a constant speed - to charge the battery, driving the electric motor. This eliminates the two-engine design, and achieves great fuel efficiency with the gas, just like driving at a stable speed (instead of constantly accelerating and decelerating) will increase your efficiency.
I admit outright that I have no problem with ending special tax breaks for oil companies in light of healthy profits. This is not the same as saying I want to "increase taxes on oil companies," because of a semantic difference in the two phrases. I want oil companies to be on par with other comparably sized companies if their profits are stable and sustainable (which in the current market they are). I don't want special benefits or special punishments.
But for the Democrats to find $4 a gallon gas as a rallying point for eliminating these tax subsidies is baffling to me. The demand for gasoline has been shown to be rather inelastic - an increase in the price by about 100% has only cut demand by less than 5%. This means as price goes up, most people will continue to buy. This means that price increases can more easily be passed on to consumers, because it won't cause a huge drop in demand.
When demand is inelastic, taxes on the suppliers get passed straight through to consumers. The all-but-inevitable result of ending the oil tax subsidies will not be to reduce the profits the oil companies make. It will be to make oil, gas, etc more expensive.
The rallying cry "gas is expensive, so let's tax the people that make it" is silly. I'm in favor of eliminating special benefits the oil companies may receive for the same reason that I'm in favor of slashing and burning agricultural subsidies - I consider it a wasteful use of limited government funds, and bad policy in a time of record deficits.
Concerning the related "we have to invest more money in renewable energy!" suggestions: no, we don't. The beauty of higher, rising prices for oil is that if there is a more economical alternative, there's a lot of profit waiting for the person or company that can develop it. The "but big energy companies will just sit on their ideas to draw higher profit from oil" argument ignores the principle that if company A sits on the idea, it leaves room for company B to jump in.
As soon as a plug-in vehicle - like the upcoming Chevy Volt - can be sold for a price that makes it more efficient than buying a gasoline-powered car, the shift will be on in full force. The novel idea in the Volt is that it has only a 40-mile range on an overnight charge... but it has a gasoline engine which is tied straight to the battery to extend that range. Unlike current dual-drive hybrids, which use a gasoline engine to move the car and an electric engine to move the car (much more complex), the Volt uses the gas engine - running at a constant speed - to charge the battery, driving the electric motor. This eliminates the two-engine design, and achieves great fuel efficiency with the gas, just like driving at a stable speed (instead of constantly accelerating and decelerating) will increase your efficiency.
Friday, June 06, 2008
The Case for War
The report on the prewar statements found that on some important issues, most notably on what was believed to be Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, the public statements from Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other senior officials were generally “substantiated” by the best estimates at the time from American intelligence agencies.
-New York Times
But that's not the lead in the story. The lead is:
But it found that the administration officials’ statements usually did not reflect the intelligence agencies’ uncertainties about the evidence or the disputes among them.
So my question is this: is it improper for officials to make public statements that rely on the best evidence and assesments available but which do not reflect the underlying uncertainty? And if that is the goal - calling out unequivocal statements, then why focus on one branch, and one party?
In a detailed minority report, four of those Republicans accused Democrats of hypocrisy and of cherry picking, namely by refusing to include misleading public statements by top Democrats like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mr. Rockefeller.
As an example, they pointed to an October 2002 speech by Mr. Rockefeller, who declared to his Senate colleagues that he had arrived at the “inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks, and we should not minimize the risks, we must authorize the president to take the necessary steps to deal with the threat.”
-New York Times
But that's not the lead in the story. The lead is:
But it found that the administration officials’ statements usually did not reflect the intelligence agencies’ uncertainties about the evidence or the disputes among them.
So my question is this: is it improper for officials to make public statements that rely on the best evidence and assesments available but which do not reflect the underlying uncertainty? And if that is the goal - calling out unequivocal statements, then why focus on one branch, and one party?
In a detailed minority report, four of those Republicans accused Democrats of hypocrisy and of cherry picking, namely by refusing to include misleading public statements by top Democrats like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mr. Rockefeller.
As an example, they pointed to an October 2002 speech by Mr. Rockefeller, who declared to his Senate colleagues that he had arrived at the “inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks, and we should not minimize the risks, we must authorize the president to take the necessary steps to deal with the threat.”
Zimbabwe and America: A common problem
A general in Zimbabwe's army said something pretty revealing ahead of the run-off "elections" coming later this month:
“Soldiers are not apolitical,” General Chedondo was quoted as saying. “Only mercenaries are apolitical. We have signed up and agreed to fight and protect the ruling party’s principles of defending the revolution. If you have other thoughts, then you should remove that uniform.”
In this man's mind, soldiers are an arm of the President, so it is their duty to vote for him. Granted, the Zimbabwe army is a corrupt tool of ZANU-PF, the ruling party that has destroyed the country. But the problem is one of identifying witthe the party or the individual at the clear expense of the state.
I remember hearing similar remarks about Bill Clinton and George Bush - He might be the commander-in-chief, but he's not my commander-in-chief. One of the just criticisms of the Bush administration is the ever-closer ties between politics and administration - like the dust-up over whether US Attourneys were fired to make room for favored appointees. In Congress, there is a common desire to hold on to power, to promote the party's business, and to grease the wheels for your side against the other side.
These are similar, if lesser, examples of the same phenomenon. It's starkly apparent when a general tells people int he military to resign if they are going to support the opposition. But they are differences with the political machinations described above of degree, not of kind.
Reasonable people may hold differing opinions. We shouldn't, therefore, expect our elected officials to always agree - two minds may have a very different idea of what's "Best for America." But the moment that loyalty is first run through the filter of loyalty to party, or to a cult of personality - that's the moment when we are in the same boat as Zimbabwe. The moment that voting for the other guy because you feel it to be the best choice is a sign of disloyalty, that's the moment you know you need to reexamine what really matters - country or party.
“Soldiers are not apolitical,” General Chedondo was quoted as saying. “Only mercenaries are apolitical. We have signed up and agreed to fight and protect the ruling party’s principles of defending the revolution. If you have other thoughts, then you should remove that uniform.”
In this man's mind, soldiers are an arm of the President, so it is their duty to vote for him. Granted, the Zimbabwe army is a corrupt tool of ZANU-PF, the ruling party that has destroyed the country. But the problem is one of identifying witthe the party or the individual at the clear expense of the state.
I remember hearing similar remarks about Bill Clinton and George Bush - He might be the commander-in-chief, but he's not my commander-in-chief. One of the just criticisms of the Bush administration is the ever-closer ties between politics and administration - like the dust-up over whether US Attourneys were fired to make room for favored appointees. In Congress, there is a common desire to hold on to power, to promote the party's business, and to grease the wheels for your side against the other side.
These are similar, if lesser, examples of the same phenomenon. It's starkly apparent when a general tells people int he military to resign if they are going to support the opposition. But they are differences with the political machinations described above of degree, not of kind.
Reasonable people may hold differing opinions. We shouldn't, therefore, expect our elected officials to always agree - two minds may have a very different idea of what's "Best for America." But the moment that loyalty is first run through the filter of loyalty to party, or to a cult of personality - that's the moment when we are in the same boat as Zimbabwe. The moment that voting for the other guy because you feel it to be the best choice is a sign of disloyalty, that's the moment you know you need to reexamine what really matters - country or party.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Primaries
I hereby place my vote for the Ugly Evangelical Democratic Primary for Cookie Monster. Having made my vote, with the candidate I chose winning 100% of the vote, I demand that it be fully counted and given a delegation at the Democratic National Convention. I know it's probably against party rules to give a delegation to a registered Republican, representing only himself and not a state, and voting for a fictional character... but evidently the rules don't matter - at least, that will be apparent if any delegates from Florida or Michigan are seated at the convention.
Seating delegates from Florida, where both Clinton and Obama were on the ballot is a lesser abandoning of the rules, but to count Michigan - where Clinton was the only major candidate to remain on the ballot, and where scores of would-be voters went to the Republican primary just to cast a meaningful vote - is absurd.
The rules were well-established going into the primaries. The rules were flagrantly violated. The penalty for violating the rules was clearly laid out. If the rules are now changed it is remarkably unfair - and if the reason for doing so is making sure every voice is heard (no matter what the rules are), then I demand that my vote for Cookie Monster be recognized with delegates.
Seating delegates from Florida, where both Clinton and Obama were on the ballot is a lesser abandoning of the rules, but to count Michigan - where Clinton was the only major candidate to remain on the ballot, and where scores of would-be voters went to the Republican primary just to cast a meaningful vote - is absurd.
The rules were well-established going into the primaries. The rules were flagrantly violated. The penalty for violating the rules was clearly laid out. If the rules are now changed it is remarkably unfair - and if the reason for doing so is making sure every voice is heard (no matter what the rules are), then I demand that my vote for Cookie Monster be recognized with delegates.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Better Regulation
From the RGJ:
---
Before the town hall meeting, Obama stopped briefly at the Las Vegas residence of Felicitas Rosel and Francisco Cano, who are worried they might lose the home they bought three years ago with an adjustable-rate mortgage. “At the beginning it was OK, but all of a sudden, it started going up and up,” Rosel told Obama.
Tighter regulation of lenders could have prevented their plight, Obama said. “A lot of this wouldn’t have happened if we had done a better job of regulating the banks and the mortgages. Nobody was watching them,” he said.
---
Wha's left unsaid: tighter regulation may have prevented the problem. It would likely have prevented it by prohibiting them from buying a home in the first place. There are probably some people who didn't need fancy mortgages but got them anyway. But there were many more (I am guessing) that needed fancy mortgages to be able to "afford" what they purchased.
So we have the quandry - in hindsight, we wag our fingers at the banks - "shame on your for your loose credit!" As it was going on, we cheered the increase in home ownership rates - "More people are living the American Dream!" We need clarity when people talk about the implications about their calls for more regulation. There is no middle ground - we have to be able to admit directly that we should have prevented the Canos from owning a home. Better lending standards squeeze out those on the low end of the ladder. Even if the government takes the (in my opinion) wrong-headed tack of propping up overvalued homes, it will only discourage home ownership by keeping homes unaffordable; unless we want the government to be in the business of buying overpriced homes for people, we can't have it both ways.
I am therefore curious about the significance of Obama making a photo-op stop at this couple's house. The implied message - "it's the bank's fault you might lose your home" is a half-truth. Obama's solution, implemented retroactively (as he seems to suggest the problem was in the past) means they never get the house they stand to lose in the first place. The truest message would be "it's the banks fault you were ever allowed to purchase this house to begin with." That is, however, much less people-friendly, and I doubt the Canos would want the photo-op at their house if that message were clearly understood.
Edit: Another source for the story confirms my suspicion - the Canos are not big wage-earners. They are a maid and a porter at the Bellagio. There is, I'm sorry to say, probably no reason they should ever have been allowed to purchase in the first place.
---
Before the town hall meeting, Obama stopped briefly at the Las Vegas residence of Felicitas Rosel and Francisco Cano, who are worried they might lose the home they bought three years ago with an adjustable-rate mortgage. “At the beginning it was OK, but all of a sudden, it started going up and up,” Rosel told Obama.
Tighter regulation of lenders could have prevented their plight, Obama said. “A lot of this wouldn’t have happened if we had done a better job of regulating the banks and the mortgages. Nobody was watching them,” he said.
---
Wha's left unsaid: tighter regulation may have prevented the problem. It would likely have prevented it by prohibiting them from buying a home in the first place. There are probably some people who didn't need fancy mortgages but got them anyway. But there were many more (I am guessing) that needed fancy mortgages to be able to "afford" what they purchased.
So we have the quandry - in hindsight, we wag our fingers at the banks - "shame on your for your loose credit!" As it was going on, we cheered the increase in home ownership rates - "More people are living the American Dream!" We need clarity when people talk about the implications about their calls for more regulation. There is no middle ground - we have to be able to admit directly that we should have prevented the Canos from owning a home. Better lending standards squeeze out those on the low end of the ladder. Even if the government takes the (in my opinion) wrong-headed tack of propping up overvalued homes, it will only discourage home ownership by keeping homes unaffordable; unless we want the government to be in the business of buying overpriced homes for people, we can't have it both ways.
I am therefore curious about the significance of Obama making a photo-op stop at this couple's house. The implied message - "it's the bank's fault you might lose your home" is a half-truth. Obama's solution, implemented retroactively (as he seems to suggest the problem was in the past) means they never get the house they stand to lose in the first place. The truest message would be "it's the banks fault you were ever allowed to purchase this house to begin with." That is, however, much less people-friendly, and I doubt the Canos would want the photo-op at their house if that message were clearly understood.
Edit: Another source for the story confirms my suspicion - the Canos are not big wage-earners. They are a maid and a porter at the Bellagio. There is, I'm sorry to say, probably no reason they should ever have been allowed to purchase in the first place.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
On Farms, Expensive Subsidies, and Cheap Talk
Given Senator Obama's support for the recent travesty of a Farm Bill, (which I am assuming is true, with a later switch to "no vote" once it was clearly going to pass, though the final vote tallies show all the candidates not voting on the final bill - cowardly for all concerned, in my book) there are two possible explanations I see.
1) He really does want to change but considers support for the Farm Bill a necessary evil to get elected president, from which place change may come.
2) He's just talk, and nothing more.
If option #1 is true, then he has nothing but good intentions, but that and $4.00 will get you a gallon of gas. Personally, I suspect #2 is true. This farm bill is so embarassing that no one who supported it should deserve reelection, on the basis of being unfit for the office (disclosure: I typed that before deciding to look up who voted how from Nevada).
Representing Nevada, voting to approve the final bill:
Senate:
Ensign: Nay
Reid: Yea
House of Representatives:
Berkley: Yea
Heller: Nay
Porter: Nay
At least Nevada's Republicans were on the right side of this travesty.
1) He really does want to change but considers support for the Farm Bill a necessary evil to get elected president, from which place change may come.
2) He's just talk, and nothing more.
If option #1 is true, then he has nothing but good intentions, but that and $4.00 will get you a gallon of gas. Personally, I suspect #2 is true. This farm bill is so embarassing that no one who supported it should deserve reelection, on the basis of being unfit for the office (disclosure: I typed that before deciding to look up who voted how from Nevada).
Representing Nevada, voting to approve the final bill:
Senate:
Ensign: Nay
Reid: Yea
House of Representatives:
Berkley: Yea
Heller: Nay
Porter: Nay
At least Nevada's Republicans were on the right side of this travesty.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
When Ideology Trumps Reason
From the LA Times:
SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger attempted to forge a path out of the state's financial mess Wednesday by offering concessions to both Democrats, who are demanding that schools and other services not be cut, and Republicans disdainful of new taxes...
"As the deficit grew these past few months, I knew that we could not solve this crisis by cuts alone," the governor said in presenting his proposals. "We had to get creative."
But state Senate leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) called the revised budget "beneath a governor of this great state. It's telling our citizens: This is it. Our best years are behind us."
Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of Clovis called the sales tax idea -- a linchpin of the governor's plan -- "a deal-killer."
To the leader of the State Senate, I'd say this: for now, they are. The entire country is having fiscal problems right now. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that today is better than yesterday financially is foolish nonsense, and your citizens deserve better. You should be ashamed of your cowardice. Unless you really think that this is a great time to really ratchet up taxes to pay for everything you'd like to be able to do, you had better prioritize what you absolutely have to do.
The the leader of the State Assembly I'd say this: There are three options - even more crippling debt, cutting spending, or raising taxes. You aren't going to be able to convince the other side of the aisle to cut spending enough, and I dare say you lack the stomach for it yourself. Postponing the problem will only make it worse. And if you are utterly dug in to your current position, you will be overrun by grim reality. If you can't win all the spending cuts you'd like, then you are better off winning some spending cuts and agreeing to some tax increase, so that the debt you currently face can be addressed.
Your state has major cities declaring bankruptcy for crying out loud. Times are tough. But on you is laid the burden to find a solution - and sitting across the aisle yelling at the other side doesn't count.
SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger attempted to forge a path out of the state's financial mess Wednesday by offering concessions to both Democrats, who are demanding that schools and other services not be cut, and Republicans disdainful of new taxes...
"As the deficit grew these past few months, I knew that we could not solve this crisis by cuts alone," the governor said in presenting his proposals. "We had to get creative."
But state Senate leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) called the revised budget "beneath a governor of this great state. It's telling our citizens: This is it. Our best years are behind us."
Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of Clovis called the sales tax idea -- a linchpin of the governor's plan -- "a deal-killer."
To the leader of the State Senate, I'd say this: for now, they are. The entire country is having fiscal problems right now. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that today is better than yesterday financially is foolish nonsense, and your citizens deserve better. You should be ashamed of your cowardice. Unless you really think that this is a great time to really ratchet up taxes to pay for everything you'd like to be able to do, you had better prioritize what you absolutely have to do.
The the leader of the State Assembly I'd say this: There are three options - even more crippling debt, cutting spending, or raising taxes. You aren't going to be able to convince the other side of the aisle to cut spending enough, and I dare say you lack the stomach for it yourself. Postponing the problem will only make it worse. And if you are utterly dug in to your current position, you will be overrun by grim reality. If you can't win all the spending cuts you'd like, then you are better off winning some spending cuts and agreeing to some tax increase, so that the debt you currently face can be addressed.
Your state has major cities declaring bankruptcy for crying out loud. Times are tough. But on you is laid the burden to find a solution - and sitting across the aisle yelling at the other side doesn't count.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The Temple of Doom, Nevada-Style
In Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the big bad guy likes to pull people's hearts out of their chest. This, obviously, kills them. And it's a beautiful picture for what the Nevada teacher's union wants to do to the state economy.
Another apt picture is the story of the goose who laid the golden egg. The farmer gets greedy, and slices open the goose, hoping to get much more gold now, instead of waiting for it to reliably deliver.
With the economy down and the gaming industry already laying off people because times are hard; with gas prices pinching auto traffic to the state and jet fuel prices pinching airlines; and with the housing market beating up on construction employment - it takes blind fools to think that raising taxes by 44% on the biggest industry in the state won't be a major blow.
The profits made in business aren't a pot of money that we can draw from through taxes without consequence. It so happens that people like their money, and the ability to get big pots of money is the whole reason they are in business. The casinos will stay in business, but it will be their employees who suffer. It will be lost construction jobs when they don't expand and rennotave. It's the industries that support gaming that will suffer.
In the end, the teacher's union will get its tax increase. And it will fall squarely on the back of people making $7 an hour who will end up making $0 per hour. And that really makes me mad. It's some of the 197,200 people who are currently employed by the casino hotel industry in the state, making a pittance even compared to teachers, who will get the shaft.
Another apt picture is the story of the goose who laid the golden egg. The farmer gets greedy, and slices open the goose, hoping to get much more gold now, instead of waiting for it to reliably deliver.
With the economy down and the gaming industry already laying off people because times are hard; with gas prices pinching auto traffic to the state and jet fuel prices pinching airlines; and with the housing market beating up on construction employment - it takes blind fools to think that raising taxes by 44% on the biggest industry in the state won't be a major blow.
The profits made in business aren't a pot of money that we can draw from through taxes without consequence. It so happens that people like their money, and the ability to get big pots of money is the whole reason they are in business. The casinos will stay in business, but it will be their employees who suffer. It will be lost construction jobs when they don't expand and rennotave. It's the industries that support gaming that will suffer.
In the end, the teacher's union will get its tax increase. And it will fall squarely on the back of people making $7 an hour who will end up making $0 per hour. And that really makes me mad. It's some of the 197,200 people who are currently employed by the casino hotel industry in the state, making a pittance even compared to teachers, who will get the shaft.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Interpretations
There's two ways to read this story. One is that the man was a legitimate threat, and was detained for the reason (which is why I suspect this was released - "See, we were right!"). The other is that the man became a suicide bomber as a result of his experience at Guantanamo Bay.
The same evidence can be read with different conclusions. It depends more on what you were inclined to believe before than on what the story "proves."
The same evidence can be read with different conclusions. It depends more on what you were inclined to believe before than on what the story "proves."
Gas Tax Holiday?
Not for Nevada. Even if the ludicrous proposal suggested by John McCain and repeated by Hillary Clinton were to become law (suspending the 18.4 cents/gallon federal gas tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day), Nevada won't see any beneficial effect at all (not that I expect one for anyone else).
Evidently, there's a state law that increases the state gas tax to offset any decline in the federal gas tax.
But if the proposal were to go through, it's likely that incresed demand would push the price back up nationwide anyway, in which case they get no benefit either, but our price for gas will be 18.4 cents per galon higher.
There's only one reason why I'll probably vote for John McCain instead of just staying home. I expect the Democrats to retain control of Congress, and I don't trust either party with control of both elected branches of government any more. It's definitely not because of head-scratchers like this one. He may as well join Hillary Clinton in expressly stating that he just doesn't trust economists.
Evidently, there's a state law that increases the state gas tax to offset any decline in the federal gas tax.
But if the proposal were to go through, it's likely that incresed demand would push the price back up nationwide anyway, in which case they get no benefit either, but our price for gas will be 18.4 cents per galon higher.
There's only one reason why I'll probably vote for John McCain instead of just staying home. I expect the Democrats to retain control of Congress, and I don't trust either party with control of both elected branches of government any more. It's definitely not because of head-scratchers like this one. He may as well join Hillary Clinton in expressly stating that he just doesn't trust economists.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Oil Companies: How Profitable Are They?
In the interest of providing perspective on the "Exxon made $40 billion in profit!!!!" hysteria that seems to come around once every quarter these days, I decided to look up just how profitable the oil and gas industry is compared to other similar industries. On Yahoo Finance, the industry can be found within the breakout for the "Basic Materials Sector."
Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhilips, etc are in the underlined category. Even within their general industry sector, their profits are hardly exemplary. They might make a lot of profit but it's because they are huge companies, not because they are extortionately squeezing the people.
Sector: Basic Materials
Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhilips, etc are in the underlined category. Even within their general industry sector, their profits are hardly exemplary. They might make a lot of profit but it's because they are huge companies, not because they are extortionately squeezing the people.
Sector: Basic Materials
| Industry | Profit Margin |
| Silver | 27.30 |
| Industrial Metals & Minerals | 20.40 |
| Copper | 18.20 |
| Oil & Gas Equipment & Services | 14.90 |
| Oil & Gas Drilling & Exploration | 14.60 |
| Independent Oil & Gas | 14.10 |
| Steel & Iron | 13.70 |
| Agricultural Chemicals | 12.60 |
| Gold | 12.30 |
| Major Integrated Oil & Gas | 9.40 |
| Aluminum | 8.50 |
| Oil & Gas Pipelines | 6.10 |
| Chemicals - Major Diversified | 5.80 |
| Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing | 5.70 |
| Synthetics | 4.10 |
| Specialty Chemicals | 3.30 |
| Nonmetallic Mineral Mining | 1.90 |
Friday, May 02, 2008
News Flash: Prices Work
I've suggested before that making gas expensive is the best way to reduce consumption on a national level, beyond the efficacy of energy policy mandates, and with little to no effort on the part of legislators. It required no tax credits, no legislation and no minimum-sales requirements, but a dramatically growing segment of the population has decided that 8mpg vehicles just don't cut it with $4 a gallon gas looming on the horizon.
But it gets better than that. Besides buying smaller cars, some people are choosing to simply drive less in their large vehicles. And the beauty of prices is that it lets every individual choose how they are going to respond. Some people will just cut back in other areas of life and drive as they always have. Some will choose mass transit. Some will drive less or slower. Some will choose to carpool. And some will buy more efficient vehicles. But people get to choose the solution that best works for them. This minimizes the burden on the people as a whole without the government needing to try to micromanage anything.
"How the downsizing of America’s vehicle fleet will affect fuel consumption is still largely unknown. When gas prices rise, as they are now, many drivers simply drive less to save money. But there are some indications that the trend toward smaller vehicles will reduce the nation’s fuel use. In California, motorists bought 4 percent less gasoline in January than they did the year before, a drop of more than 58 million gallons, according to the Oil Price Information Service."
It's a burden on the people to have to pay more for gas. But vehicle emissions are a HUGE part of total CO2 emissions, and if you want to reduce that, it will be costly. The best way to mitigate that burden is to give people the most flexibility in responding to it.
But it gets better than that. Besides buying smaller cars, some people are choosing to simply drive less in their large vehicles. And the beauty of prices is that it lets every individual choose how they are going to respond. Some people will just cut back in other areas of life and drive as they always have. Some will choose mass transit. Some will drive less or slower. Some will choose to carpool. And some will buy more efficient vehicles. But people get to choose the solution that best works for them. This minimizes the burden on the people as a whole without the government needing to try to micromanage anything.
"How the downsizing of America’s vehicle fleet will affect fuel consumption is still largely unknown. When gas prices rise, as they are now, many drivers simply drive less to save money. But there are some indications that the trend toward smaller vehicles will reduce the nation’s fuel use. In California, motorists bought 4 percent less gasoline in January than they did the year before, a drop of more than 58 million gallons, according to the Oil Price Information Service."
It's a burden on the people to have to pay more for gas. But vehicle emissions are a HUGE part of total CO2 emissions, and if you want to reduce that, it will be costly. The best way to mitigate that burden is to give people the most flexibility in responding to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)