But wouldn't it be better for the environment in the long run if we all continued to drive our older gas-guzzling cars than for us to all get rid of them in favor of a new fleet of cars that will cost millions of tons of resources to produce and will only save us a couple of miles per gallon per car?
And since all those gas-guzzlers will wind up on the streets of Central and South America anyway... what's really being saved?
Just asking.
UPDATE: Oh, well that explains everything... (can you see my eyes rolling?)
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Quote of the day
From Krauthammer, writing a review of Obama's National Security speech about how he's really, seriously, NOT doubling down on Bush's policies, even though we all know he is...
"The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the opposition to come to its senses when it takes over. "
"The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the opposition to come to its senses when it takes over. "
The California Experiment Has Failed
I live in California and tuesday the voters went to the polls and voted on 6 propositions, 5 of which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said were absolutely essential to keep the state from failing into bankruptcy. I was happy to vote against all 6 of them.
Well, those 5 went down to overwhelming defeat. Nevermind that those propositions were poorly worded and wouldn't really fix the problem: overspending by the politicians. Prop 1A was particularly bad even though it claimed to create a cap on spending and a "rainy day" fund except that fund could be raided on sunny days.
The simple fact is that in 1999, the budget for the state of California was $75 billion, the first year that Gray Davis took office. By 2002, it was at $104 billion. Last year, it was at $145 billion. That's a 92% increase in 10 years. That means that spending increased double over the rate of inflation and population growth. If we had just held spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth, we'd be looking at at $15 billion surplus this year rather than the $42 billion deficit we have.
Yet according to Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times, the voters are the problem and the politicians are the solution. Get rid of the 2/3rds majority to raise taxes, get rid of term limits, and get rid of Prop 13 which limits property taxes.
No where in his article does he make any reference to the increased spending of the politicians as a problem. In fact, he doesn't mention spending at all. He seems intent on blaming this squarely on the voters and holding them accountable.
Let's contrast that with the op-ed from the San Diego Union Tribune. It doesn't blame the voters. It places the blame at the feet of the politicians, which is where is belongs. They were the ones that decided to increase spending beyond inflation plus population growth, not the voters.
California as an experiment has failed. By trying to go to "green" energy, our energy costs are the highest in the nation except for Hawaii because we refuse to drill for oil off our shores or build nuclear power plants. As a result, we have to import the majority of our energy. We have a severely regressive tax code with a effective rate of 9% (if you make over $45,000) and a 10% rate for millionaires (which I still think it high but at least they're making a million dollars.) Compare that with New Hampshire where their 6% rate kicks it at $335,000. Last year, more people left the state than moved in. Where did they go? To lower tax states like Nevada, Arizona, and Texas. We have spent and spent as if the good times would never end and now that they have, the politicians blame us and want more.
Sorry, I'm not having any of it.
This wouldn't be nearly as worrisome if President Obama's plan for the nation didn't look a lot like California: raise taxes on the "wealthy" (those making over $250,000), invest in green energy jobs (but no money for nuclear which emits zero CO2 into the atmosphere), and "cap and trade" carbon emissions (which is another energy tax).
They say as California goes, so goes the nation. If I were the rest of the nation, I'd be very afraid right now.
Well, those 5 went down to overwhelming defeat. Nevermind that those propositions were poorly worded and wouldn't really fix the problem: overspending by the politicians. Prop 1A was particularly bad even though it claimed to create a cap on spending and a "rainy day" fund except that fund could be raided on sunny days.
The simple fact is that in 1999, the budget for the state of California was $75 billion, the first year that Gray Davis took office. By 2002, it was at $104 billion. Last year, it was at $145 billion. That's a 92% increase in 10 years. That means that spending increased double over the rate of inflation and population growth. If we had just held spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth, we'd be looking at at $15 billion surplus this year rather than the $42 billion deficit we have.
Yet according to Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times, the voters are the problem and the politicians are the solution. Get rid of the 2/3rds majority to raise taxes, get rid of term limits, and get rid of Prop 13 which limits property taxes.
No where in his article does he make any reference to the increased spending of the politicians as a problem. In fact, he doesn't mention spending at all. He seems intent on blaming this squarely on the voters and holding them accountable.
Let's contrast that with the op-ed from the San Diego Union Tribune. It doesn't blame the voters. It places the blame at the feet of the politicians, which is where is belongs. They were the ones that decided to increase spending beyond inflation plus population growth, not the voters.
California as an experiment has failed. By trying to go to "green" energy, our energy costs are the highest in the nation except for Hawaii because we refuse to drill for oil off our shores or build nuclear power plants. As a result, we have to import the majority of our energy. We have a severely regressive tax code with a effective rate of 9% (if you make over $45,000) and a 10% rate for millionaires (which I still think it high but at least they're making a million dollars.) Compare that with New Hampshire where their 6% rate kicks it at $335,000. Last year, more people left the state than moved in. Where did they go? To lower tax states like Nevada, Arizona, and Texas. We have spent and spent as if the good times would never end and now that they have, the politicians blame us and want more.
Sorry, I'm not having any of it.
This wouldn't be nearly as worrisome if President Obama's plan for the nation didn't look a lot like California: raise taxes on the "wealthy" (those making over $250,000), invest in green energy jobs (but no money for nuclear which emits zero CO2 into the atmosphere), and "cap and trade" carbon emissions (which is another energy tax).
They say as California goes, so goes the nation. If I were the rest of the nation, I'd be very afraid right now.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
I wonder why that is?
While reading a fascinating account of the dire straits that Ohio finds itself in now that a significant number of its most productive citizens have chosen to flee the state's soaring taxes and declining services, I noticed an interesting passage.
When I attended grade school in the Mesozoic Era (actually the 1960s), we learned that the Buckeye State had eight cities (Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown) with populations greater than 100,000, the most in the country. We also knew that Cleveland, at 876,000, was the eighth largest city in the U.S. (Schools were strangely focused on facts in those days, weren’t they?)
Today, Youngstown (down over half) and Canton have populations of less than 80,000. Cleveland will probably be below 400,000 soon. All of the others except Columbus, the state’s capital, have declined severely.
What sticks out to you in that passage?
For me it was "All of the others except Columbus, the state’s capital, have declined severely."
Think about THAT for a minute. Why might the state's capital city be the only city bucking the trend of declining population?
It's actually quite simple to figure out. The state's problem is expanding government. State government is becoming larger and larger and is siphoning off larger and larger amounts of what is produced by the state's most productive citizens.
And that's why you see the state capital growing while the rest of the state is strangled to death. The state's most productive citizens are fleeing the state altogether, while the least productive (Lobyists, Politicians, State govenment workers) are running to Columbus to suck off the ever-growing government teet.
How long you think that's gonna last? How long can that wealth transfer sustain itself if those who pay into the system are crying uncle and heading for greener pastures?
A lot of other states might be about to find out.
When I attended grade school in the Mesozoic Era (actually the 1960s), we learned that the Buckeye State had eight cities (Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown) with populations greater than 100,000, the most in the country. We also knew that Cleveland, at 876,000, was the eighth largest city in the U.S. (Schools were strangely focused on facts in those days, weren’t they?)
Today, Youngstown (down over half) and Canton have populations of less than 80,000. Cleveland will probably be below 400,000 soon. All of the others except Columbus, the state’s capital, have declined severely.
What sticks out to you in that passage?
For me it was "All of the others except Columbus, the state’s capital, have declined severely."
Think about THAT for a minute. Why might the state's capital city be the only city bucking the trend of declining population?
It's actually quite simple to figure out. The state's problem is expanding government. State government is becoming larger and larger and is siphoning off larger and larger amounts of what is produced by the state's most productive citizens.
And that's why you see the state capital growing while the rest of the state is strangled to death. The state's most productive citizens are fleeing the state altogether, while the least productive (Lobyists, Politicians, State govenment workers) are running to Columbus to suck off the ever-growing government teet.
How long you think that's gonna last? How long can that wealth transfer sustain itself if those who pay into the system are crying uncle and heading for greener pastures?
A lot of other states might be about to find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
