Why do you people hate rainbows, unicorns and puppies?

Support for putting federal funds into alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and hydrogen has slipped to its lowest point in polls since 2006, driven by growing Republican opposition to such initiatives, according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll.

The new findings, which follow the bankruptcy of solar panel maker Solyndra and the ongoing congressional probe of the Obama administrationÂ’s loan-guarantee program for renewable-energy ventures, show that attitudes toward renewable energy have diverged between the two parties.

...

Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, argued that the shift in support makes sense given the media coverage many Republicans receive from outlets such as Fox News.

“It is not surprising that support for federal funding for clean energy drops among Republicans when their major source of information is a ‘news’ network that is pushing an anti-environment, anti-science, anti-government agenda 24/7,” Karpinski wrote in an e-mail.

However, Jack N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said the findings suggested Americans are more open to the oil and gas industryÂ’s message that fossil fuels are more reliable job creators.

“When the administration came to town, they set expectations very high,” Gerard said. “The public is now seeing a commotion around Solyndra and are asking, ‘This is the best we can do? Where are the jobs?Â’ ”

Where are the jobs? All over the world of course.

Some people here are benefiting naturally...Democrat connected law firms.

Once again the self described "reality based community" supports policies because they have faith they have to work, they just have to! Meanwhile those stupid conservatives look at evidence and we are mindless putty at the hands of Fox News.

Posted by: DrewM at 03:58 PM | Comments (198)
Post contains 327 words, total size 3 kb.

Shameless thievery by government on behalf of their union masters.

If you're a parent who accepts Medicaid payments from the State of Michigan to help support your mentally-disabled adult children, you qualify as a state employee for the purposes of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). They can now claim and receive a portion of your Medicaid in the form of union dues.

Robert and Patricia Haynes live in Michigan with their two adult children, who have cerebral palsy. The state government provides the family with insurance through Medicaid, but also treats them as caregivers. For the SEIU, this makes them public employees and thus members of the union, which receives $30 out of the family's monthly Medicaid subsidy. The Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) deducts union dues on behalf of SEIU.

$6 million a year in dues for....nothing. And how much of that gets recycled to Democrats in the form of campaign contributions?

Read the whole thing and be sickened.

Posted by: DrewM at 01:11 PM | Comments (367)
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Remember during the 08 campaign how we laughed about Obama's habit of voting "present" in the Illinois Senate? We taunted liberals that he wasn't going to be able to do that as President.

Well, turns out he can.

The Obama administration will announce Thursday that it is re-evaluating the route of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a move that will likely delay a final decision on the project until after the 2012 election, sources briefed by the administration said.

TransCanada Corp.Â’s Keystone XL pipeline would carry oil sands crude from Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas. The proposed pipeline has set off a firestorm in Washington, with critics raising environmental concerns and proponents arguing the project will boost the economy.

Sources briefed by the administration said the decision to consider a new pipeline route would likely delay a final decision on the pipeline until after the election. The administration initially planned to make a decision on the project by the end of the year, but the State Department recently acknowledged that the timeline could slip.

Leading from behind: It's not just for wars time limited, scope limited kinetic military actions.

What's the big deal? It's not like we need jobs or cheaper and reliable sources of energy. We've got Solyndra solar panels baby!

BTW-This might be a good thing for Rick Perry to hammer the hell out of. Just a thought.

Added: I wonder what well known proponent of major infrastructure programs, Rachel Maddow, will say about this. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 12:05 PM | Comments (333)
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

Are Republicans really this stupid? Of course they are, they're Republicans after all.

The House GOP “overwhelmingly” supports holding a vote on a “clean” version of the balanced budget amendment as opposed to a version that makes it harder to increase taxes, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the author of both versions of the legislation, said Wednesday.

...

The key difference between the two measures is that the clean version only requires a majority vote to raise taxes. The other version, which is supported by Grover Norquist and his group Americans for Tax Reform, would require a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers to raise taxes. Fewer Democrats support the latter version, since the two-thirds vote would set up a high hurdle for raising taxes to reduce the deficit. Goodlatte said that the GOP members made their views clear in a Friday caucus meeting. He said those supporting the clean version believe it is the only one with a chance of winning approval.

I hate when conservatives adopt a "don't just stand there, do something!" approach. No Balanced Budget Amendment is better than a lousy one which will almost certainly lead to higher taxes. But the BBA is popular with the base so...of the cliff we go!

Personally, I don't favor a BBA of any kind.

First of all, balancing the budget for the sake of balancing the budget isn't a priority for me. The number one thing we have to get a handle on in this country is spending. I'd much rather have a smaller more reasonable deficit on a budget that is at a significantly lower percentage of GDP than a balanced budget at a higher level of spending like Simpson-Bowles would have by locking in discretionary spending at 2010 post-"stimulus levels". (Ideally of course we'd have a balance budget at the lower levels)

A BBA is a magical thinking solution to a real and growing problem. Just saying "you must balance the budget"doesn't mean that it will simply happen. Look at the enforcement language in the clean BBA that passed the House in 1995 and came close to winning passage in the Senate, it's said to be the model for this year's attempt.

`SECTION 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

That likely means some combination of CBO and OMB estimates. Do you really think there aren't enough clever minds on the Hill or at OMB to game that system? One need look no further than the ridiculous "savings" they came up with for ObamaCare to see how that works. And what happens when they fudge the numbers up? Is someone going to sue? Who would have standing to sue? And even if you could find someone who did have standing, do people really want to get the federal courts involved in the budget process? The damage that would do not only to the fiscal health of the country but also the very notion of representative democracy is almost unimaginable.

The only way we are ever going to get our fiscal house in order and grow the economy is to shrink the size and scope of the federal government. A BBA doesn't do that and in fact could lead to the exact opposite. The real solution is to convince the American people that they will be better off in the long run if they expect less from the federal government. Anything short of restoring the proper relationship between the people and the federal government is either going to be a gimmick or at best a Band-Aid.

(Originally posted at my own little blog)

Posted by: DrewM at 11:07 AM | Comments (164)
Post contains 631 words, total size 4 kb.

Not a lot of Romney fans here, eh? Yeah, I hear ya. But it makes sense to have a Plan B.* Plan A is for our favorite candidate (SaraPerrCainRich) to drive Obama before him and hear the lamentations of Michelle. But what if that doesn't happen? What if... (dum dum dum) we're stuck with President Romney?

*Plan C is 4 More Years of Obama. Just be prepared for a Zombie Apocalypse. Most of those steps would work there.

In today's (Nov 4) GFile (email so no link) Jonah Goldberg was musing on a President Romney. Here are the relevant paragraphs (I got his permission for this extended excerpt) along with my anti-fisking (since I mostly agree with him - I just want to pile on)

(after expounding on Cain for a bit...)

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 10:40 AM | Comments (240)
Post contains 1117 words, total size 7 kb.

Remember how we had to pass Obamacare to find out what was in it? What about how the reason for its lack of popular support was that Obama himself just hadn't done a good enough job of selling it? Well Herman Cain has a message for you about 999:

Herman Cain at Big Sky Diner on his 999 plan: "When you understand it, you will demand it."

See, the problem isn't the plan; it's you. You object to giving the federal government a sales tax to go along with the income tax? Sheer idiocy. You think moving from taxing businesses on their net income to taxing them on value added opens a great big Pandora's box? Shut up and read the plan.

Honestly, I think maybe the biggest problem with 999 is that Cain doesn't understand it all that well. Here's one example drawn from the transcript of last night's debate:

MR. CAIN: My proposal is the only one that solves the problem by throwing out the current tax code, which has been a mess for decades -- (applause) -- and we need to put in something different that I've proposed: 9-9-9. It satisfies five simple criteria.

It is simple. The complexity costs us $430 billion a year.

It is transparent. People know what it is. There are thousands of hidden "sneak attaxes" in the current tax code. That's why I want to throw it out.

It is fair. The reason it's fair is because of the definition in Webster, which says everybody gets treated the same, all businesses get treated the same, not having Washington, D.C., pick winners and losers. This is why I have proposed a bold plan of 9-9-9: 9 percent business flat tax, 9 percent tax on personal income, a 9-percent national sales tax. It treats everybody the same. And it will boost this economy.

MS. BARTIROMO: How do you ensure that when the government needs more revenue, that the sales tax doesn't go up and that plan doesn't turn into 19-19-19?

MR. CAIN: Tax codes do not raise taxes, politicians do. (Cheers, applause.) And as long as it's visible, the people will hold the politicians' feet to the fire. It's not the code that raises taxes, it's the politicians. Because the code -- because the approach 9-9-9 will be very visible, the American people are going to hold the rates at 9. (emphasis added)

The bolded parts give the impression that every business would be taxed identically, but that's simply not true. As a reminder, the 9 percent business flat tax is calculated as follows (with apologies in advance for introducing math at the HQ):

• Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses, all capital investment, and net exports.


• Empowerment Zones will offer deductions for the payroll of those employed in the zone

Obvious winners under 999 totally not picked by Washington D.C.: Capital intensive business, businesses that purchase goods based on location of supplier, net exporters, and businesses that employ people in empowerment zones.

Obvious losers under 999 totally not picked by Washington D.C.: Labor intensive business, businesses that purchase goods based on factors other than location of supplier, net importers, and businesses that employ people outside of empowerment zones.

Somewhere in between falls a range of effective business tax rates, some in excess of 100% of net accounting income yet all totally transparent according to Cain.

Yeah, I can see people just lining up to demand this once they understand it.

Bartiromo's follow-up question about 19-19-19 was a good one (oddly enough). Cain's answer was naive beyond belief.

I'd point out to Cain that the current tax code, which has been a mess for decades, didn't get this way overnight. It started off simple but over time politicians put in provisions to favor things like, say, trade protectionism and inner-city revitalization. But what do I know?

Posted by: andy at 09:32 AM | Comments (290)
Post contains 669 words, total size 4 kb.

I'm traveling to Denver today to BlogCon. So I won't be around at all.

I'll be back tomorrow, though. If... late.

Posted by: Ace at 08:27 AM | Comments (335)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Everything bad is good for you. I wrote about this last July.

In Sleeper, Woody Allen's character, the owner of a health food store, wakes up in the future to find that junk food is good for you, among other things. It's a fish out of water story. "The Sleeper Curve" is an expression that acknowledges the fact that much of the absurd humor in the movie is coming true. The expression comes from a book by Steven Johnson, Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter.

Here are some of the items from that post:

• High-fat diets are good for you.
• High-fat diets help you lose weight.
• Steak and lard and bacon are good eats.
• Low salt diets increase the risk of death.
• Diet soda makes you fat.

And now? From Time Magazine, any blood pressure-lowering benefit of reduced salt intake is offset by other changes. This goes further than the study linked above because it outlines why low salt diets increase the risk of death. It turns out salt helps your body get rid of bad cholesterol.

Danish researchers report in the American Journal of Hypertension that reducing sodium consumption led to a 1% drop in blood pressure in people who had normal pressure readings, and a 3.5% drop in those with hypertension. But other changes may offset those benefits: people who cut dietary salt also saw a 2.5% increase in cholesterol levels and a 7% boost in triglycerides. Like high blood pressure, elevated levels of cholesterol and triglycerides are risk factors for heart disease. Excessive triglycerides can also contribute to diabetes.

(Emphasis mine.) What, you mean tweaking an ultra-complex system based on incomplete information and then telling others to do the same can have unintended bad consequences? No way!

Follow me on Twitter. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 07:40 AM | Comments (199)
Post contains 309 words, total size 3 kb.

This is the worm at the core of the rotten Social Security and Medicare apple: it asks young and comparatively poor people to transfer wealth to older and comparatively wealthy people.

Since the Census Bureau started publishing measures of poverty in the 1960s, our understanding of the concepts of poverty has changed. As well as better measures of income and spending, we also need to include measures of assets and employment. Then, we need to figure out how to make younger people better off.

Rick Perry's flash-crash. I'm beginning to think that I'll have to write in "Zombie Nixon" on my ballot next year....

Democrats walk away from the Super Committee. Everybody who’s actually surprised by this, raise your hand. This was inevitable and probably the point of the exercise all along for the Democrats. Democrats will die on the entitlement hill -- to the extent that the Democrat Party is about anything, it is about the continuation and growth of the welfare state. They will never vote to roll it back. The Democrats picked far-left ideologues to staff the Committee for a reason. And, just as predictably, they will blame the failure of this farce on the “intractable” GOP.
more...

Posted by: Monty at 04:42 AM | Comments (382)
Post contains 1119 words, total size 9 kb.

Happy Birthday, USMC.

Posted by: andy at 02:47 AM | Comments (240)
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.