American Elephants


The Freedom of Religion Battle by The Elephant's Child

Congressional Democrats in the guise of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have been trying to pull a fast one. Sandra Fluke, portrayed as a 23 year-old coed at Georgetown Law School is actually 30 years old, and a long time activist for unmarried victims of domestic violence. Somehow this morphed into being an activist for “reproductive justice,” which means getting someone else to pay for your birth-control pills.

You have probably heard about her testimony. She claimed it cost poor law students $3,000 for three years of birth control; Rush Limbaugh noted that she was declaring on national television that she wanted to have an active sex life without benefit of marriage, and wanted someone else to pay for it, and suggested that implied that she was a slut. That prompted President Obama to make a personal telephone call to her to tell her how proud her parents must be that she was standing up for her principles.

Birth-control seems a private matter, and I don’t understand why someone else should pay for the cost. It is not a health matter, but a matter of Democrat feminists’ demand for “choice.” You choose whether or not you want to have sex outside of marriage, you choose whether or not you want to have a baby, and you choose whether or not you want to pay to do something about it. The price of a 30-day supply of birth control pills at WalMart has been variously described as $4, $6 and $9. That does not seem exorbitant — even for a student.

Adding birth control to mandated health insurance raises the cost of that insurance. Catholic institutions are morally opposed, and the matter is clearly unconstitutional under the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment. The State shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

This is a major case of hypocrisy. Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius are both Catholic. President Obama, at the same time he celebrates adding to the cost of ObamaCare unnecessarily, is asking Congress to triple the cost of Tri-Care, the military’s health insurance, to the troops, in order to cut the budget.

All this is an attempt to garner women’s votes by telling them that Republicans want to deny women the right to birth control. They are already running ads to that effect. This president has made it clear that he has little respect the separation of powers nor for the Constitution that he took an oath to preserve, protect and defend. He intends to get around it with executive orders and regulation.



Unemployment Benefits Are the Best Way of Creating Jobs? by The Elephant's Child
December 2, 2010, 6:03 pm
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy | Tags: , ,

Nancy Pelosi made this claim again today, that unemployment benefits are the best way of creating jobs. President Obama said essentially the same thing — that unemployment benefits will be spent right away. Since the unemployed are hard-up, they will spend their benefits immediately, and then that money will s-l-o-w-l-y circulate through the economy creating “multiplier effects” which Christina Romer pegged at somewhere over 1.5% — to which some other economist said — obviously, all you have to do is dump $1 trillion into the economy, and you will get $1.5 trillion back.  You don’t even have to do anything else, just keep dumping money into the economy and — oh wait!!!  That’s what we have been doing.

Consumer demand is a consequence, not a cause, of economic growth.

I have an idea.  If we can just get President Obama to stop destroying jobs, I’d bet things would pick up right away.  The moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico cost something over 32,000 jobs, some rigs have left the Gulf, and although the moratorium is over, new drilling permits are not being issued — even for shallow water wells which have had no safety problems at all.  When Congress banned incandescent lightbulbs, to please GE, the incandescent factories closed permanently, and twisty bulbs now come from China.

The administration has subsidized  several electric battery factories, but there is a glut of batteries, and no market.  When you hike the minimum wage, you raise the unemployment rate.  Mandating health insurance shuts down small businesses.  Raising the cost of energy kills jobs, and requiring the use of renewable energy raises the cost of energy.  Denying permits to the coal industry (Obama said he would  bankrupt Coal) kills jobs.  Defunding the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository kills jobs.  And bashing business, particularly small business as represented by America’s Chambers of Commerce doesn’t help.  I could go on, but you get the idea.



There Are No Tax-Cuts On the Table! by The Elephant's Child
December 2, 2010, 4:04 pm
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Freedom, Taxes | Tags: , ,

The Hoopla in the House of Representatives has many people confused.  The subject is the Bush Tax Cuts from 2001 and 2003.  George W. Bush was able to get tax cuts for all Americans passed.  Democrats cried “Tax Cuts for the Rich”, but “the rich” got the smallest percentage tax cut of all, and the bottom 40% of taxpayers had to pay no income tax at all.  To get the bill passed, the tax cuts came with an expiration date, which is December 31,2010. Which means that if they are not extended, your taxes will go up — a lot.

Most sentient human beings know that it is supposed to be a very bad idea to raise taxes during a recession, when the economy is struggling to recover. It’s a bad idea politically to raise taxes on the middle class — they don’t like it, and there are a whole lot of them.  But to the leftist mind, “the rich” are very bad people, which is odd, because a great many of them are very rich indeed.  So we have to assume that they believe that disparaging the rich helps them politically.

A recent poll showed that 78% of all those queried said that they would like the tax cuts for households earning under $250,000 to be extended either permanently or for a few years or until the economy fully recovers.  Democrats agreed by 73%.  What about “the rich?” A solid majority (56%) said they wanted tax cuts extended for households with more than $250,000 in income.  Only 39% wanted the rich to pay more.Support for letting the tax cuts be made permanent for the rich is overwhelming for both Republicans and Independents at 63%.  Democrats oppose this by 55%.  Democrats hate tax cuts.

President Obama has claimed that Republicans want to give “the rich” another tax cut, which will cost the Treasury $700 billion which they will have to borrow from other countries.  This is patently false.  Republicans are trying to keep the Democrats from raising your taxes.  Refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts means that taxes would go up for everybody. Capital gains taxes would rise from 15% to 20%.  Estate taxes which are zero right now, would climb to 55% — or over half of anything over $1 million.  To claim that leaving tax rates for the rich right where they are would cost $700 billion simply means that Obama is counting his chickens before they hatch.  He expects $700 billion to come in from increased taxes on the rich — but the rich are perfectly capable of rearranging their finances to they don’t have to pay more.

There are no tax-cuts on the table.

Estimates from the respected Heritage Center for Data Analysis show that over 10 years, letting the bush cuts expire would slash $1.1 trillion from GDP, kill 6.9 million jobs, reduce overall business investment by $330 billion and lower Americans’ disposable income by $726 billion.  A real disaster.

The Twentieth Amendment intended that there would be no such thing as a “Lame Duck Session.”  The amendment was ratified on January 23, 1933, when travel was a lot slower, and no one considered that members of Congress could dash back to the Capitol for another session after the election had been determined.  When a business fires anyone, their things are packed up and they are escorted off the premises immediately, with the undercurrent that they might commit an act of sabotage if they were allowed to linger.  A goodly percentage of the members of Congress have been fired, but they are back in he Capitol building committing what political sabotage they can manage.

This chart from the Heritage Foundation shows that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP remain relatively constant no matter what the top individual tax rate.  (Click to enlarge).



Decision Making 101. To Drill or Not to Drill, That is the Question! by The Elephant's Child

The Obama administration reimposes the offshore drilling ban.  Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the Obama administration will not allow offshore oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico or off the Atlantic or Pacific coasts as part of the next five-year drilling plan. This reverses two key policy changes that President Obama announced in late March.

In March, less than a month before the DeepwaterHorizon oil spill, Obama and Salazar said they would open up the eastern Gulf and parts of the Atlantic including areas off the coast of Virginia to offshore oil and gas exploration.

Secretary Salazar said that while the administration will still allow offshore drilling in both the central and western Gulf of Mexico, lease sales planned for March and August in the Gulf will be delayed in order to conduct additional environmental reviews.  They will also prepare a new environmental assessment of Shell’s proposal to drill in Alaska’s Beaufort Sea next year. (And should they decide that it is environmentally permissible,  there’s still the planned blocking of drilling for the benefit of polar bears who will be declared endangered no matter how much they increase).

The administration has been all over the map with this.  In the end politics trumps safety, and trumps science.  Decisions about the safety and environmental protection that were said to be based on science weren’t.

This long article attempts to capture the changing viewpoints and decisions and their origins.  It’s a worthwhile read to help understand what was going on behind the scenes., and something of how decisions are made.  It doesn’t seem that anyone is talking to anyone who actually knows something about energy and science.  Nor does anyone have any particular qualifications for the job they are doing.  It is very, very depressing.



Promises, Pork, and Partisan Politics. by The Elephant's Child

On Friday President Obama was wrapping up a two-day swing through Missouri and Nevada, delivering a speech on clean energy that could give a boost to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is in a difficult fight for re-election.  On Friday, he gave a speech at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas combining policy and politics.

He called on Congress to expand a clean energy tax credit that could pay off in Nevada, where Harry Reid is behind in the polls.  Obama told his audience that a $5 billion increase in “clean energy” manufacturing tax credits could generate nearly 40,000 jobs, some of them in Nevada where 14 percent unemployment undermines Reid’s argument that his position as Majority Leader pays dividends to his state.

Reid, bucking for a fifth term, has been pushing hard for solar energy investments in Nevada’s hot climate.  More sober analysts point out the experience of Spain, where every green energy job cost over two jobs in the regular economy because of the increased cost of energy. European governments are getting out of the “green energy” business as fast as they can, it has been a financial disaster for them.  Britain is still home to true believers, and their economy is still in the tank.

In an interesting coincidence, just hours before Obama arrived in Nevada to hold a fundraiser for Reid, the Departments of Energy and Interior joined Reid in announcing a new “Solar Demonstration Zone” in Nevada where new solar technologies can be tested and developed.

I’m sure it was just coincidental.  It would be tacky to use taxpayer money to buy an election for a supporter, wouldn’t it?



Death Panels? You Betcha! Obamacare is Downright Dangerous to Your Health! by The Elephant's Child

President Obama has nominated Dr. Donald Berwick to head the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).  Like far too many other Obama nominees, Dr. Berwick is a far-left ideologue.  He is in love with the deplorable British National Health Service (NHS).  He is outspoken in his admiration for NHS, and its rationing arm — the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE):

“I am romantic about the National Health Service.  I love it,” Berwick said during a 2008 speech to British physicians, going on to call it “generous, hopeful, confident, joyous, and just.”  He compared the wonders of British health care to a U.S. system that he described as trapped in “the darkness of private enterprise.”

One would consider this a clue to his ideology.   He was referring to a British health care system where 750,000 patients are awaiting admission to NHS hospitals.  The government’s official target for diagnostic testing was a  wait of no more than 18 weeks by 2008.  The reality does not come close.  The latest estimates suggest that for most specialties only 30 to 50 percent of patients are treated within 18 weeks.  (That’s over 4 months!)  For trauma and orthopedics patients, the figure is only 20 percent. Overall, more than half of British patients wait more than 18 weeks for care.  Every year, 50,000 surgeries are canceled because patients become too sick on the waiting list to proceed.   These figures come from Michael Tanner, who is a scholar at the Cato Institute, where he specializes in health care.

Obama plans to appoint Dr. Berwick as a “recess appointment,” which means that he doesn’t have to get Senate confirmation.  Whether Obama knows that Republicans would fight confirmation, or whether he knows that a partisan fight would make headlines and revive his increasingly despised health care plan in public attention and increase the number (now over 60 percent) who want the health care bill repealed, we don’t know.  Maybe both.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the CMS administrator does more than make sure that Medicare and Medicaid pay claims in a more or less accurately and timely fashion.  The office defines the equality of health care for every insurance plan, sets reimbursement rates for physicians in Medicare and Medicaid, and decides what treatments are more “valuable” than others

Berwick would be given control of the practice of medicine. Can he or anyone be trusted with such power?  He believes that “Up to half of the more than $2 trillion that the U.S. spends on health care does nothing to relieve suffering.” In fact, “much of it adds to suffering.” It may not be joyous or hopeful  or configured correctly but for nearly every disease, particularly cancer stroke and heart attacks Americans live longer and healthier than the English because of better care.  Americans spend less time in the hospital, have fewer doctors, and see doctors less often per capita than people in Great Britain.

Dr. Berwick wants to bring NICE-style rationing to this country.  It is not a question of whether we will ration care,” he said in a magazine interview for Biotechnology Healthcare, “It is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” What he considers absolutely essential to reform of health care is government control over health care spending, not just for government programs but by patients themselves.  If the government refuses you a drug you are willing to pay for, and you can pay for it yourself, too bad, you’re out of luck.   The hallmarks of proper financial management in a system,” he wrote,  “are government policies, purchasing contracts or market mechanisms that lead to a cap on total spending, with strictly limited year-on-year growth targets.  That way “rational collective action overrides individual self-interest.”

Through NICE, the British government has put an effective dollar amount on how much a citizen’s life is worth.  Each year of added life is worth approximately $44,305.  This is a general rule and the agency has occasionally approved treatments costing as much as $70,887 per year of extended life.  For Dr. Berwick, this is exactly how it should be.  “NICE is not just a national treasure, it is a global treasure.” That is the voice of an ideologue, able to look casually on all sorts of  cruelty and killing in the name of the ideal he holds pure and ‘joyous’  in his dreams. We saw examples of that type in the old Soviet Union and in Red China. For in Britain, people are being killed every year by government denial of service, or or by the long wait for care, or by the poor caliber of care.

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe says:  ” But if Berwick’s credentials cannot be doubted, neither can his ideological commitment to centralized state power over health care, or his disdain for the ability of markets and competition to improve the quality and lower the cost of medical services.  Here are some recent headlines from British papers that give a sense of the coverage.

“Overstretched maternity units mean mothers face a 100-mile journey to have baby.’’

“Hundreds of patients died needlessly at NHS hospital due to appalling care.’’

“Cash-strapped NHS trust introduces rationing for common children’s conditions.’’

“Standard of care in some wards ‘would shame a third world country.’ ’’

“Stafford Hospital caused ‘unimaginable suffering.’ ’’

So, if you plan to get to be old, or if you get to be poor, which may happen to most of us, you really need to go to work to get Obamacare repealed.  Because this is what the headlines will be in this country in a few years.



The Great Obama Depression. by The Elephant's Child
July 2, 2010, 11:35 pm
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Progressivism | Tags: , ,

President Obama gave a speech to a town hall meeting in Racine,  Wisconsin this week. Straw men, not his fault, economy recovering, Recovery Act working, Bush’s fault, Republicans won’t help, stimulus worked, more straw men, border more secure than ever, not his fault, more straw men.  Promoting the “merits” of his stimulus bill, President Obama said:

Now, every economist who’s looked at it said that the Recovery [Act] did its job…The problem is, number one, it’s hard to argue sometimes, “things could have been a lot worse. Right?  So people kind of say, “Yeah, but unemployment’s still at 9.6 percent.” Yes, but it’s not 12 or 13 or 15.  People say “Well, you know, the stock market didn’t fully recover.” Yeah, but it’s recovered more than people expected last year.  So part of the challenge in delivering this message about all the Recovery Act accomplished is that things are still tough, they just aren’t as bad as they could have been..  They could have been a catastrophe.  In that sense [the stimulus] worked.

New claims for jobless benefits jumped last month by 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 472,000.  The number of people continuing to claim benefits rose by 43,000 to 9.6 million.  The number collecting extended benefits fell by 376,000. Since unemployment figures count only those actively seeking work, the real number is said to be around 17 percent.

“Unemployment’s still at 9.6 percent.
But it’s not 12 or 13 or 25.”

Every economist certainly did not say that the Recovery Act did its job. Alan Meltzer, professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon, said in the Wall Street Journal yesterday “The administration’s stimulus program has failed.” as innumerable other economists have said.  Even Keynesian economist Jeffrey Sachs said that the stimulus failed.

Allan Meltzer added that “The president, his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible.  But they want new stimulus measures — which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed.”

Obama got somewhat of a chilly reception from world leaders at the G-20 summit over the past weekend when he pressed them to continue with spending to bolster the global economy. Many nations in Europe and elsewhere have had to grapple with their own debt crises, and have been forced to enact tough austerity measures.

In 1981, President Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending.  Recovery began about a year later.  After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and continued to expand above trend rates. The administration economists neglected the longer-term  consequences of their actions.

Economist Larry Kudlow says:

The economic power of business is the missing link in the faux debate that is now raging over spending and deficit policies. A brief look at the recent jobs report for June tells this story. After spending more than $1 trillion through so-called government stimulus, we are at best experiencing a grinding and anemic jobs recovery. Private payrolls are growing slowly. The workweek is again shrinking. And average hourly earnings have declined. The unemployment rate dropped to 9.5 percent, but that’s because 650,000 people left the labor force.

The economic power of business is the missing link in the faux debate that is now raging over spending and deficit policies. A brief look at the recent jobs report for June tells this story. After spending more than $1 trillion through so-called government stimulus, we are at best experiencing a grinding and anemic jobs recovery. Private payrolls are growing slowly. The workweek is again shrinking. And average hourly earnings have declined. The unemployment rate dropped to 9.5 percent, but that’s because 650,000 people left the labor force.

So what about all this stimulus spending? Well, it hasn’t worked.

Business, in order to hire, plan for the future, increase spending, needs more than vague hope.  They need some kind of certainty.  Right now, everything is up in the air.  There’s a new health care law, how much will it cost business? Nobody knows.  Will the Bush tax-cuts be extended? Will Congress enact new taxes?  What is in the new Dodd-Frank bill’s 2000+ pages and how will it affect business?  What new regulations are going to be imposed? Cap-and-trade would  be an enormous cost on doing business, will it pass, and what will it mean to business?  Are we in for a double-dip recession? How can a business, hoping to make a profit in an economy where everyone is reluctant to buy, reluctant to spend, know what to do?

Misdiagnosis of the problem, and a lack of understanding of the possible remedies has made the problem far worse than it needed to be. The far left blames “capitalism” for most of the world’s problems, but “capitalism” is simply the name Marx gave to the free market.

Unemployment is the problem.  Yet most policies adopted by the Obama administration increase unemployment.  Slapping a heavy tax on makers of medical devices means lower employment in that industry.  Unnecessarily shutting down all oil rigs in the Gulf creates huge unemployment as rigs leave the area.  Failing to take quick action to prevent oil slicks from reaching the coastline means unemployment all up and down the coast.  Requiring people to switch to CFL lightbulbs means that industry will take place in China.  Closing  federal lands to oil exploration means lost jobs. Putting too many regulations and taxes on business means businesses will move to somewhere where they are better treated. There are always consequences.



Obama, Golf and the Gulf. by The Elephant's Child

A billion here, a billion there, first thing you know you’re talking real money! by The Elephant's Child

Last Saturday night, President Obama sent a letter to the  House and Senate leadership, urging them to quickly approve a tax and spending bill currently being debated in the Senate that would add another $80 billion to our already terrifying budget deficit.  But the president also requested another $50 billion to bail out state and local governments.  Without this additional money, the president claims, thousands of government union jobs would be lost.

$23 billion of the $50 billion emergency money would supposedly go to keeping teachers in the classroom.  This would be on top of the $100 billion appropriated to the Department of Education by the President’s $862 billion stimulus bill — of which $34.7 billion in education funds is still unspent.

Perhaps you have noticed, as I have, that our state governments, when confronted with a budget crisis, are quick to lay off teachers, policemen and firemen and to shut down popular parks.  [See, see how painful it is for us to cut the budget of our perks, we'll just cut the things you like, so that you won't mind when we jack up your taxes].  New Jersey’s Governor Chris Christie is showing how it can be done.  He has frozen teachers’ salaries for a year, and asked them to pay a reasonable co-payment (like the rest of us have) for their health insurance.

$25 billion is supposed to bail out state Medicaid programs.  Medicaid spending   has quadrupled since 1990 from $69 billion to $118 billion. When they keep getting bailed out, state’s have little incentive to rein in costs or to tackle rampant fraud.  The more bailouts, the more states will spend in the excess spending.

Obamacare is only 3 months old, but it is already in need of another bailout — $400 billion. In his weekly radio address, he was pleading with Congress to pass the Doc fix — that is the Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors that they cut in the Obamacare bill to make it seem affordable.  The idea that there was any deficit reduction if Obamacare were always a complete fraud.

It’s clear that the Liberals think of these funds as government money that they can just spend at will to fix things.    How do things get fixed? Why by putting the wise folks in government, and their friends, in charge.  After all, it’s only money.



Barack Obama: Is He “The Alien in the White House?” by The Elephant's Child


The most noted “must read” piece of the week is titled “The Alien in the White House,” and comes from Dorothy Rabinowitz, a national treasure found at the Wall Street Journal.  Many have struggled to understand just what our president intends.  He has seemed to me not to understand the office of the presidency, and Ms. Rabinowitz, gracefully, agrees that he is “wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents:”

For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans’ leader, a man of them, for them, the nation’s voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn’t lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.

A great part of America now understands that this president’s sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.

It is an important article, for it clarifies the intent of the administration, and from whence that intent comes. You will find it interesting even if you disagree, for the debate is  useful for us all.  Do read the whole thing.



Obama’s Debt Commission is Going Into Debt! by The Elephant's Child

President Obama’s answer to a knotty problem is to — quick — appoint a commission.  That will show not only how serious he is, but will leave it to others to examine the evidence and probe the possibilities.  And “a commission” sounds so responsible.  He has just appointed a commission to investigate the oil spill. Maybe they can get some prompt answers from the EPA.

But it appears that President Obama’s Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform better known as “The Debt Commission” is (snicker) running out of money.  The president’s bipartisan fiscal commission is operating on a shoestring budget and some panel members and lawmakers worry that it may well run out of money.

The 18-member commission is tasked with coming up with proposals, by December 1, that will find ways to control the federal government’s trillion-dollar budget deficit.  The panel’s own budget, however, is only $500,000, barely enough to cover office rent and the salaries of four staff members.

And though the White House and Treasury have loaned the panel experts from their own payrolls, and several think tanks are helping as well, the total full-time staff currently is only about 15 people and not expected to exceed 20. Money is so tight that the commission recently abandoned hopes of holding field hearings around the country to gather views from outside of Washington.

The commission had wanted to have “field hearings around the country” to gather concerns and ideas from a wide range of constituencies.  This is a lovely idea, but the reasons for our fiscal problems are not a mystery.  And the solutions are not unknown.  They could probably get by with a short trip to New Jersey and a consultation with Governor Chris Christie, but of course he is a Republican.  And there are any number of Republicans in Congress who have solid ideas.

We spend way too much money on bloated government budgets, overpay government employees by comparison with their private sector peers.  We have too many agencies, boards and dare I say commissions, and we keep adding to them.  We keep shoveling money into entitlement programs without restraint.  And Obama’s efforts to “fundamentally change America” in ways that Americans don’t want it changed are, of course, the major source of the debt.  The American people want real action, the Obama administration provides theatrics.  If politicians in Washington do not have the political will to do what needs to be done, then they need to be replaced.

The Heritage Foundation offered some guidelines.

  • Move Toward Historical Levels of Taxes and Spending
  • Bring Long-Term Solvency to Social Security and Medicare and Reform Medicaid
  • Reopen the Health Care Law
  • Offer Specific Spending Reforms, Not Just Numerical Targets
  • No New Taxes or Tax Increases
  • Bring Budget Transparency

Not a bad list.

ADDENDUM: I changed the headline on this post.  I just liked this one better.



Why Are We Drilling in 5,000 Feet of Water In the First Place? by The Elephant's Child

A bit of history — June 27, 2009, The White House — President Barack Obama said:

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a historic piece of legislation that will open the door to a clean energy economy and a better future for America.

For more than three decades, we have talked about our dependence on foreign oil.  And for more than three decades we have seen that dependence grow.  We have seen our reliance on fossil fuels jeopardize our national security.  We have seen it pollute the air we breathe and endanger our planet.  And most of all, we have seen other counties realize a critical truth: the nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy.

The only true part of that entire statement is that the House passed a piece of legislation.  Even the “historic” word is false.

Our “foreign” oil mostly comes from Canada and Mexico.  Our reliance on fossil fuels has not “jeopardized” our national security. Every airplane, tank, Humvee and truck  runs on fossil fuel, every piece of equipment is lubricated with fossil fuel and there is, for the foreseeable future, no alternative.  Our national security has been jeopardized by the environmental movement who attempt to block every attempt to increase our domestic supplies of energy.

Since June of 2009, we have had ClimateGate, and the exposure of the fraudulent nature of the global warming scheme.  Spain has exposed the false dream of green energy and green jobs.  Denmark has exposed the high cost of any dependence on wind energy.  And even the IPCC is giving up on global warming and shifting their emphasis to biological diversity — the next enthusiasm.

Our air is largely clean.  The planet is not endangered, and the alarmist global warming theme has been debunked by the fraudulent actions of the warmists themselves. There is no prospect for a so-called “clean energy economy.” Wind and solar, inefficient as they are, produce only electricity, and cannot replace even one Deepwater Horizon well.

Wind power is a bunko scheme.  Without huge subsidies the wind industry does not exist.  Each wind turbine must be backed 24/7 with conventional energy, because the wind blows only very intermittently, seldom at the right speed, and usually not when it is needed.   As far as solar is concerned, the sun sinks slowly in the west, and it gets dark at night.

Electric cars have a long history.  They are clean and quiet — too quiet — for the government has demanded that manufacturers add noise to warn pedestrians of their approach.  The problems are the same as they were in the early 1900s. A battery charge won’t take you far enough.  Batteries are too expensive.  There are no charging stations, and it takes too long to charge a battery.  I have seen figures of 7 hours, but I don’t know if that is accurate.

There may be a clean energy economy in the future, but there is not in the present.  Shutting down drilling, trying to tear down hydropower dams and refusing permitting for nuclear plants does jeopardize our national security, and endanger our planet.  And in the midst of a recession, with unemployment at high levels, you probably don’t want to waste taxpayer money on schemes that experience teaches are wasteful drains on an economy.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,432 other followers

%d bloggers like this: