Politics and Randomness

Gingrich's aggravating attack on self-deportation

2012-01-26T08:37:00.000-08:00

I haven't talked much about the current presidential primary. That's mostly because I don't like our choices. I think both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are big government politicians, and Rick Santorum is highly socially conservative, but doesn't seem quite so strong on issues of actual governance. Ron Paul is tempting in several ways, but his failure to distance himself from 9/11 conspiracy theorists is a source of serious concern for me.

Of the two front runners, Gingrich and Romney, Romney is slightly more conservative. I know, many people will argue that point. There's a lot to argue, it's true. I've become convinced the more I learn about Gingrich's political past that he's a big government progressive. Romney is far too big government for my liking, but he doesn't seem to be a progressive, and that difference really does matter.

One aggravating attack Gingrich made recently was with regard to the illegal alien problem we have in the United States. We want immigrants here. We want the best and brightest, those willing to take risks to make a better life. All we ask is that they come here legally, the way my wife did.

When asked about this in a recent debate, Romney advocated self-deportation. He was absolutely right. It's the only viable solution to this problem. You really can't arrest all illegal aliens, put them on buses or planes and send them home. You can make it impossible to work here illegally, the way Mexico presently does, and then they'll leave. That's self-deportation.

Pandering to Latino voters in Florida, Gingrich held an interview with Spanish-language Univision network, and he mocked this very sensible approach to solving the problem of illegal immigration. The Washington Post reports here.

“You have to live in a world of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island accounts and automatic $20 million income for no work to have some fantasy this far from reality,” Gingrich told Univision interviewer Jorge Ramos. “For Romney to believe that somebody’s grandmother is going to be so cut off that she is going to self-deport, I mean this is an Obama-level fantasy.”

I'll set aside the mocking of success and the denigration of the key concept of the right to rise in the free market and focus on Gingrich's unacceptable point on immigration.

Nobody's concerned about illegal alien grandmas self-deporting, though they shouldn't be eligible for benefits that should be reserved to those lawfully entitled to them. They have committed a crime, and they shouldn't be here, but they're not the focus of those of us who want to end illegal immigration. We're far more concerned with those taking jobs they legally aren't entitled to. We're even more concerned with those who associate with gangs, endanger others by driving illegally, or commit crimes beyond and in addition to the initial crime of coming here illegally. Even simply stealing someone else's social security number to illegally gain employment is sufficient that every lawful resident should object strongly.

What do employers have to do? It's easy. When interviewing for a position, let the candidate know they use the USCIS E-Verify system. Using it is key to maintaining compliance with U.S. law. Then employers should actually use the E-Verify system. Honest people who want to come here to work are welcome. They'll just need to do it lawfully and without stealing anyone's identity. Those who come here illegally for work will leave when they can't get a job. Those here illegally to commit crimes can be arrested and deported or arrested and jailed.

Gingrich is simply wrong on this issue, and even if he doesn't like Romney and wants to beat him, Gingrich should have the courage to admit when Romney is right.

The Democrats didn't complain about this

2012-01-24T13:09:00.001-08:00

There's been a lot of fuss about Mitt Romney's effective tax rate. When John Kerry ran for the presidency, his effective tax rate was lower. I don't recall democrats complaining at all about that.

Source here.

I actually don't begrudge John Kerry his tax rate any more than I begrudge Mitt Romney his. Let me explain why. The media has failed to mention that these rates are so low because they're mostly capital gains taxes. What are capital gains? When you take income you've earned and paid taxes on and buy investments and those investments make a profit, those profits are capital gains.

The gains you've made are new income, it's true. The democrats argue that out of fairness, we should tax them at a higher rate. This is something I've addressed in a previous post, which you can read here. The short version is that if you tax capital gains at a higher rate, people don't find investing as attractive, so they do it less. That means you end up with less capital gains profits to tax. So, not only does the economy suffer because investment is critical to growth, but the government is able to ~~steal~~ make less money via taxation, too. Thus, everybody loses if capital gains tax rates are raised too high.

In other words, Democrats complaining against the most effective (low) capital gains tax rates aren't simply anti free market, they're anti logic, anti prosperity, anti economic growth and anti tax revenue.

Jimmy Carter: Less Relevant Every Day

2012-01-18T13:06:00.000-08:00

Real Clear Politics posted a comment by Jimmy Carter today. Carter, in a typically addled Carter way, joins the media in saying that Newt Gingrich was engaging in racism by calling President Obama the food stamp president and suggesting the poor would be benefited more by jobs, even entry level jobs, than by dependence on the government.

Jimmy Carter and the media are actually the racists on this one. It's racist to say, as they're openly saying, Blacks are the primary recipients of welfare dollars, especially since it's not even true. (Note: the article is old, but Whites still receive more welfare dollars than Blacks).

The real problem is that the current attitudes held by Jimmy Carter and media commentators are incorrect and outdated. My generation doesn't think about race the way they do. President Obama being black wasn't even a consideration for me during the last presidential election. Race and gender aren't important to me. Ideas and convictions are.

The media's focus on misperceived racism is perpetuating a foolish obsession with skin color that needs to go quietly to its grave. Most of America is post racial. The media just needs to catch up and Carter needs to go back to farming peanuts.

Illegal, unConstitutional and Unprecedented

2012-01-04T13:25:00.000-08:00

When they left for their Christmas break, Congress chose not to recess. President Obama has set up a potential Constitutional crisis by making a controversial recess appointment anyway, in a manner that would have been unacceptable even if Congress had recessed.

The details are here from the Washington Times:

Obama sets up clash with Congress over recess banking pick
Breaks Democrats’ own rule from Bush administration

Defying Congress, President Obama used his recess appointment powers Wednesday to name a head for the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in a move Republican lawmakers said amounted to an unconstitutional power grab.

The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session — a move that breaks with at least three different precedents which have held that the Senate must be in recess for at least three days before a president can act. Mr. Obama himself was part of two of those precedents, both during his own time in the Senate and again in 2010 when one of his administration’s top lawyers made the three-day argument to the Supreme Court.

So what makes this appointment okay in his eyes?

The White House, though, argues Republican senators stonewalled the nominee for so long that Mr. Obama had no choice but to circumvent them.

The president introduced Mr. Cordray during a trip to Ohio Wednesday, telling a supportive crowd that the Senate Republicans’ ongoing blockade of his nomination “inexcusable.”

“I refuse to take ‘No’ for an answer. I’ve said before that I will continue to look for every opportunity to work with Congress to move this country forward. But when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them,” Mr. Obama said.

Actually, if the legislative branch says "no," then the executive branch must take "no" for an answer with regard to Constitutionally-outlined checks and balances. That careful separation of powers and the ability to check the actions of another branch of government is what prevents a president from becoming a dictator. I've never seen the creation of a dictatorship for himself as President Obama's goal, but he's certainly handed those who do potent ammunition with this decision.

The Right to Rise

2011-12-20T08:00:00.000-08:00

An excellent op-ed piece by Jeb Bush about Paul Ryan's perfect phrase, "The Right to Rise."

Op-ed here: Capitalism and the Right to Rise

That is what economic freedom looks like. Freedom to succeed as well as to fail, freedom to do something or nothing. People understand this. Freedom of speech, for example, means that we put up with a lot of verbal and visual garbage in order to make sure that individuals have the right to say what needs to be said, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular. We forgive the sacrifices of free speech because we value its blessings.

But when it comes to economic freedom, we are less forgiving of the cycles of growth and loss, of trial and error, and of failure and success that are part of the realities of the marketplace and life itself.

Increasingly, we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedoms through the annual passage of thousands of laws and their associated regulations. We see human tragedy and we demand a regulation to prevent it. We see a criminal fraud and we demand more laws. We see an industry dying and we demand it be saved. Each time, we demand "Do something . . . anything."

The National Defense Authorization Act and Politics and Randomness

2011-12-19T11:40:00.000-08:00

Last week, the National Defense Authorization Act stirred up everybody who believes in the 1st Amendment. Or the 2nd Amendment. Come to think of it, just about any fan of the Bill of Rights was upset with some of the provisions of the bill.

Why are people up in arms about the bill? The biggest problem is the language that would allow the government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens captured on U.S. soil without charge or due process.

While that's scary, it's only to be applied against people engaged in terrorist activity, right? The problem is that many states suspect you of terrorism if you happen to own weather-proofed ammunition, have more than 7 days of food on hand, or happen to be missing any fingers. So, suspicion of terrorism is so broad, authorities could easily detain you indefinitely just because they feel like it.

It's much like the old joke about police having probable cause to pull you over. In most states, the vehicle code is so extensive, officers say there's always a reason to pull someone over, so probable cause amounts to, "Probably because I wanted to pull you over." That's funny for a pullover where you get to conversationally chat with an officer and then go on your way when he sees you're really on a 2 AM run for cold medicine and not a drunk driver. Not so funny when you're talking about being stripped of your civil rights and facing indefinite detention.

So, this blog is being stripped of most of its entries. We're down by 200 posts at this point and I'm still picking through what I really can't bear to get rid of. In a way, it's a good thing. If you want to review posts, you'll find only the best and most important things remain.

I am vehement about my rights, but I'm unwilling to be the Gitmo detainee who gets to test the Constitutional supportability of the NDAA's less freedom-friendly provisions. I'll leave that to the people with platforms so big they can't be detained without public outcry.

Why the parties don't seem different

2011-12-13T15:03:00.000-08:00

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy." -- Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time

Truth - the new hate speech

2011-09-22T13:05:00.000-07:00

Warren Buffett and a Fair Share

2011-09-20T10:15:00.000-07:00

Lately the idea that the rich need to pay their fair share has been a mantra of the left. The tax rate for normal income for the rich is higher than that of their secretaries, contrary to Warren Buffett's claims.

What they're talking about is capital gains tax, or tax on investment income. One example is when you sell a stock (that you purchased with income that has already been taxed) that has increased in value. You'll pay 15% tax on that increase. Why isn't that 30-something percent? Because it's not advantageous for anybody. Historically, people invest less if you do that and the government actually takes in less money. That's right, tax revenue goes down. So raising the rate helps no one. This is the Laffer curve at work, and the Left is fully aware of the historical data.

In fact, during a debate moderated by Charlie Gibson with then Candidate Obama admitted that he was aware of this (video below):

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28%. It's now 15%. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28%.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15%.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Why in the world would anyone enact a tax rate that discourages investment and decreases tax revenue in a difficult economy? That's not fair, that's just stupid.

Notice the inanity of candidate Obama's response. "Though raising capital gains tax will bring in less money, it's to make the rich pay their fair share and we need to fund all these great programs." If you bring in less revenue due to a tax policy that brings in less revenue, then you're actually reducing funding for all those great programs, Mr. Obama.

Why more Stimulus won't create more jobs

2011-09-11T07:06:00.000-07:00

President Obama made a "jobs speech" this past week that either shows stupidity (which I don't believe), incredible economic naivete (which might be the case for him, but some of his advisers certainly know better) or simply a desire to excuse more pointless spending.

What's the harm of such spending? Besides the debt incurred, the problem is that it will actually prolong our crisis.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

The left has accusingly pointed out that companies are sitting on large amounts of cash, but they aren't hiring. They even know why, but they won't do anything about it.

The answer to that question [why companies with money aren't hiring] has become a political flash point between the White House and big business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which held a jobs summit Wednesday and accused the Obama administration of dumping onerous regulations on businesses. That has created an environment of "uncertainty," which is causing firms to hold back on hiring as the unemployment rate has hovered near 10 percent, the Chamber said.

This has become well-known to anyone following the issue, yet those who deal with economics on the theoretical level are still surprised by the "news."

The man in the aisle seat is trying to tell me why he refuses to hire anybody. His business is successful, he says, as the 737 cruises smoothly eastward. Demand for his product is up. But he still won’t hire.

“Why not?”

“Because I don’t know how much it will cost,” he explains. “How can I hire new workers today, when I don’t know how much they will cost me tomorrow?”

He’s referring not to wages, but to regulation: He has no way of telling what new rules will go into effect when. His business, although it covers several states, operates on low margins. He can’t afford to take the chance of losing what little profit there is to the next round of regulatory changes. And so he’s hiring nobody until he has some certainty about cost.

Perhaps our biggest mistake was hiring a leftist professor to govern the country during this time of crisis. He cares more about his agenda than our jobless citizens, and is still completely blind to the plight of the average worker.

The Far Left and Cars 2

2011-06-25T09:34:00.000-07:00

The far left just doesn't seem to get it. I found out yesterday that in Pixar's "Cars 2," the director decided to make "big oil" the enemy. Kevin Glass at Townhall made some great points, but there's more to explore.

First, the director shouldn't advocate for alternative energy when he doesn't know what he's talking about. "Why isn’t alternative fuel more… Why isn’t everybody jumping on that bandwagon? It makes so much sense: Electricity, solar, whatever. There’s ethanol," he explained.

Really? Ethanol? Okay, let's start there. What we make in the U.S., and what lefties are pushing is biomass ethanol. We've known ethanol made this way is a terrible idea from an energy standpoint for many years. Worse yet, by making it from food crops, we're contributing to world hunger and high food prices, so we're starving people in poor countries by burning food for fuel. That's right, under-informed director John Lasseter ignorantly advocates killing poor people in Cars 2.

"Electricity" isn't an alternative fuel, by the way. Electric cars will be great for commuting as technology makes them increasingly viable in the free market, but where we get that electricity matters. When you run the numbers, we can't generate enough power using alternative sources. Cecil Adams works through the numbers on several alternative power generation methods here. They aren't enough to meet our needs. Lasseter suggest solar power. Great idea! Depending on whose figures you review, powering the U.S. using solar would only require paneling over several states, but you couldn't do that because environmentalists block new solar projects.

This is why I'm a proponent of nuclear energy, and now that I know about them, liquid fluoride thorium reactors. Yes, the environmentalists will still squeal about it. We have to ignore them and build the reactors before the need becomes crippling.

Moving to the entertainment aspect of this movie, it strikes me that Lasseter has taken a very poor approach. When you produce a cartoon, broad appeal is a must. Lasseter has chosen to immediately alienate more than half his potential audience with his message. When you're making a movie filled with characters based on NASCAR racing, you'll probably want to make sure you create a story such an audience will find fun and inoffensive. As the far left generally portrays them, NASCAR fans aren't exactly anti big oil people. They aren't liberals at all. It would seem Lasseter isn't just ignorant about the realities of energy alternatives, but also not very informed about marketing. The result is a movie my family won't just skip in the theater, we won't buy it or rent it, either.

ATMs and Kiosks are not the problem

2011-06-18T06:32:00.000-07:00

From time to time, President Obama produces real gems of idiocy dredged up from the talking points of the labor unions. Last week's example is so egregious, it's hard to believe.

“There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."

This is like blaming the cotton gin and the telegraph for the Great Depression. The advances came well before the economic trouble. Field workers and Pony Express riders did absolutely lose their jobs, and they went on to do other things, as have most farriers, ice delivery men and switchboard operators.

By President Obama's (lack of) reasoning, we should help the economy by ripping robotic elements from production lines. Humans can go back to doing those repetitive, dangerous tasks for low wages. At least they'll be employed.

He should also throw away the Blackberry he so famously clung to at the start of his presidency in favor of human messengers.

Why do Unions (and by extension, President Obama) oppose automation? Because large numbers of union workers are normally displaced by automation. This hurts union revenue, since fewer people are paying dues. The workers ultimately will retrain and find better jobs that don't involve as much risk and mind-numbing repetition, so their lives improve even as the economy becomes more efficient. That doesn't help a labor union, though, so they've created President Obama's anti-progress argument to try to convince people that what hurts the union is bad, even if it is actually helpful to the economy and the worker.

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

2011-06-05T08:02:00.001-07:00

Since I'm always interested in energy solutions, I was fascinated when Jay posted this. I thought I'd share.

More at Energy From Thorium.

A shorter description of the advantages here.

The impact of ending nuclear power generation

2011-03-31T12:53:00.000-07:00

If you've followed this blog at all, you know I'm a huge proponent of nuclear power as the least bad solution to our energy needs. That's still true following Japan's nuclear power crisis following their earthquake (note that U.S. reactors have much better containment vessels than those failing in Japan).

If you think we can do without nuclear power, here's a column that might help convince you otherwise:

What The End Of Nuclear Power Would Actually Mean For The World

Further, it's a good idea to build more modern, safe nuclear power plants. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace makes the case here:

Going Nuclear

We simply can't do without nuclear power. If we plan to stop using oil, we need many more nuclear power plants, and soon.

Link dump

2011-03-31T11:23:00.000-07:00

Basically, if you're not following Gateway Pundit, you're missing out on a lot of news.

Gateway Pundit is unashamedly opinionated, but the basic facts they present seem to be ignored by most of the media. Here are stories I'd like to write commentary about, but there just isn't time:

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ADMITS TO FRAUD- Sebelius Tells Committee Dems Double-Counted $500 BILLION DOLLARS in Obamacare

Obama Vows to Veto Any Bill That Defunds Planned Parenthood

Grim Milestone… Number of Obamacare Waivers Now Tops 1,000

Disgusting… Leftists Move to Have Prominent Republican’s Children Expelled From State University

Fail. Obama Posts LARGEST MONTHLY DEFICIT EVER… Larger Than Bush 2007 Deficit For Entire Year

MORE THUGGERY… Union Goons Threaten & Harass Conservative Kids at Ohio Rally – Try to Steal Their Phones (Video)

DEATH THREAT Slipped Under WI Senator’s Door (Photo)

Stunner. Republican Harassed & Woman Assaulted at Indiana Union Rally (Video)

HORRIBLE… Rep. Ellison’s Sobbing Jag at Radical Islam Hearing Was All Based On a Lie (Video)

Sad. Obama Official Salazar Lies to Congress About Gulf Oil Production (Video) …Update: Obama Repeats Lie

A NEW LEFTIST RECORD… 18 WI Republicans Receive Death Threats This Week

Sorry Rep. Ellison… 80% of All Terrorism Convictions Since 9-11 Involved Radical Islamists

Suspect Located In Wisconsin GOP Death Threats UPDATE: Female Suspect Has Confessed

Palestinians Hand Out Candy After Murder of 5 Israelis in Their Sleep

Unreal. Eric Holder Now Forcing Dayton Police Force to Hire Minority Applicants Who Can’t Pass Test

Dana Perino: It’s Interesting How Obama Says Things That Are So Quickly Proven False (Obama Lying Again)

Awful!… WISCONSIN LEFTISTS Harass State Senator at Her Home… On Sunday Morning (Video)

If NPR Is Non-Biased… Why Is MoveOn.org Trying to Save Them?

Wow! 62% Favor Repeal of Unconstitutional Obamacare

ANOTHER LEFTIST ATTACK… Union Supporters Harass & Superglue Doors of WI Grocer

Radical Leftists Destroy Wisconsin State Capitol Lawn (Video)

Obama Praises Brazilian Oil Industry While He Blocks Drilling Here at Home

Don’t Worry… Barack Obama Only Miscalculated the US Deficit By $2.3 Trillion

The Circle Is Complete… Obama Not Only Embraces Bush Policies But Is Copying His Speeches Too

UNREAL. Obama Administration Announces Creation of Conservation Youth Corps of America

Horrible… Obama Smears Bush While Discussing Libya in Chile

EPA Is Now Paying Lung Association to Attack Republicans

Barack Obama in 2009: “I Promise I Will Never Rush the Decision to Send You in Harms Way” (Video)

GE Paid No Taxes in 2010 Despite Making $5.1 Billion in Profits

Horrible… Obama and Reuters Rewrite History to Smear Bush

Dem Senator Lautenberg: Republicans Don’t Deserve Freedom’s of Constitution

Most Transparent Administration Ever Stuffs Reporter in a Closet For Over an Hour

Obama Covers Another 44 Million Americans Under Disabilities Act

Dumbest Website on Internet Media Matters Unveils First Big FOX Hit Piece… FAILS

Myths of Energy Independence

2011-01-07T13:23:00.000-08:00

If you've followed this blog, you know I'm very big on energy independence as a means to free us from our ties to the Middle East and also provide a cleaner environment, though I don't believe in the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

This is an article about the myths of energy independence. It's worth a read. I'll provide the entire text as an archive for when the Washington Post doesn't want to bother with maintaining it, because I think it's worth preserving. The original article is here.

5 Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit

By Robert Bryce
Sunday, January 13, 2008

With oil prices still flirting with $100 a barrel, everyone is talking about the need for "energy independence." Late last year, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; Sen. John McCain has declared, "We need energy independence"; and Sen. Barack Obama has called for "serious leadership to get us started down the path of energy independence."

This may all be good politics. But the idea that the United States, the world's single largest energy consumer, can be independent of the $5 trillion-per-year energy business -- the world's single biggest industry -- is ludicrous on its face. The push for energy independence is based on a series of false premises . Here are a few of the most pernicious ones.

1 Energy independence will reduce or eliminate terrorism.

In a speech last year, former CIA director R. James Woolsey Jr. had some advice for American motorists: "The next time you pull into a gas station to fill your car with gas, bend down a little and take a glance in the side-door mirror. . . . What you will see is a contributor to terrorism against the United States." Woolsey is known as a conservative, but plenty of liberals have also eagerly adopted the mantra that America's foreign oil purchases are funding terrorism.

But the hype doesn't match reality. Remember, the two largest suppliers of crude to the U.S. market are Canada and Mexico -- neither exactly known as a belligerent terrorist haven.

Moreover, terrorism is an ancient tactic that predates the oil era. It does not depend on petrodollars. And even small amounts of money can underwrite spectacular plots; as the 9/11 Commission Report noted, "The 9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack." G.I. Wilson, a retired Marine Corps colonel who has fought in Iraq and written extensively on terrorism and asymmetric warfare, calls the conflation of oil and terrorism a "contrivance." Support for terrorism "doesn't come from oil," he says. "It comes from drugs, crime, human trafficking and the weapons trade."

2 A big push for alternative fuels will break our oil addiction.

The new energy bill requires that the country produce 36 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2022. That sounds like a lot of fuel, but put it in perspective: The United States uses more than 320 billion gallons of oil per year, of which nearly 200 billion gallons are imported.

So biofuels alone cannot wean the United States off oil. Let's say the country converted all the soybeans grown by American farmers into biodiesel; that would provide only about 1.5 percent of total annual U.S. oil needs. And if the United States devoted its entire corn crop to producing ethanol, it would supply only about 6 percent of U.S. oil needs.

So what about cellulosic ethanol, the much-hyped biofuel that can be produced from grass, wood and other plant sources? Many in Congress believe that it will ride to the rescue. But the commercial viability of cellulosic ethanol is a bit like the tooth fairy: Many believe in it, but no one ever actually sees it. After all, even with heavy federal subsidies, it took 13 years before the corn-ethanol sector was able to produce 1 billion gallons of fuel per year. Two and a half decades elapsed before annual corn-ethanol production reached 5 billion gallons, as it did in 2006. But now Congress is demanding that the cellulosic-ethanol business magically produce many times that volume of fuel in just 15 years. It's not going to happen.

3 Energy independence will let America choke off the flow of money to nasty countries.

Fans of energy independence argue that if the United States stops buying foreign energy, it will deny funds to petro-states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Hugo Ch¿vez's Venezuela. But the world marketplace doesn't work like that. Oil is a global commodity. Its price is set globally, not locally. Oil buyers are always seeking the lowest-cost supplier. So any Saudi crude being loaded at the Red Sea port of Yanbu that doesn't get purchased by a refinery in Corpus Christi or Houston will instead wind up in Singapore or Shanghai.

4 Energy independence will mean reform in the Muslim world.

The most vocal proponent of this one is New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who argues that the United States should build "a wall of energy independence" around itself and thereby lower global oil prices: "Shrink the oil revenue and they will have to open up their economies and their schools and liberate their women so that their people can compete. It is that simple." When the petro-states are effectively bankrupt, Friedman argues, we'll see "political and economic reform from Algeria to Iran."

If only it were that easy. Between about 1986 and 2000, oil prices generally stayed below $20 per barrel; by the end of 1998, they were as low as $11 per barrel. As Alan Reynolds pointed out in May 2005 in the conservative National Review Online, this prolonged period of "cheap oil did nothing to promote economic or political liberty in Algeria, Iran, or anywhere else. This theory has been tested -- and it failed completely."

5 Energy independence will mean a more secure U.S. energy supply.

To see why this is a myth, think back to 2005. After hurricanes ravaged the Gulf Coast, chewing up refineries as they went, several cities in the southeastern United States were hit with gasoline shortages. Thankfully, they were short-lived. The reason? Imported gasoline, from refineries in Venezuela, the Netherlands and elsewhere. Throughout the first nine months of 2005, the United States imported about 1 million barrels of gasoline per day. By mid-October 2005, just six weeks after Hurricane Katrina, those imports soared to 1.5 million barrels per day.

So we're woven in with the rest of the world -- and going to stay that way. Today, in addition to gasoline imports, the United States is buying crude oil from Angola, jet fuel from South Korea, natural gas from Trinidad, coal from Colombia and uranium from Australia. Those imports show that the global energy market is just that: global. Anyone who argues that the United States will be more secure by going it alone on energy hasn't done the homework.

robert@robertbryce.com

Robert Bryce is a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research. He is the author of the forthcoming "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence.' "

LA Times: Green economy will hit consumers hard

2010-12-03T12:15:00.000-08:00

Even the LA Times admits now that Jerry Brown's agenda to "greenify" will pummel the CA economy:

But state regulators have already crunched some numbers associated with the linchpin of Brown's plan: to generate one-third of the state's power from renewable sources by 2020. That could require rate hikes of as much as 14.5%, in addition to billions of dollars in private investment, according to an analysis by the state's Public Utilities Commission.

Staff at the commission, which regulates Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and a handful of smaller utilities and sets rates for most Californians, estimates the cost of the plan at roughly $60 billion over the next decade. That is more than state taxpayers will spend on the University of California and California State University systems combined over the same period.

(emphasis mine)

Spain is the country that has pushed "green jobs" the most on record, and they've realized it has a devastating impact on the economy. So much so that they are drastically cutting government subsidies of green projects.

If you voted against Prop 23 in the last election, thanks for the price hikes. You are directly responsible.

Another voice against Anthropogenic Global Warming

2010-10-09T19:14:00.000-07:00

As the lies of anthropogenic global warming alarmists are exposed and fewer people are willing to listen to their drivel, they've tried to keep themselves in the news in various ways.

This wasn't what they'd hoped for.

Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara resigned from the American Physical Society, and he included a few choice words in his open letter. Here's my favorite part.

...my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

The full letter is worth your time, and I quote it below to preserve the content.

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

Health Care Failing Already

2010-10-09T14:41:00.001-07:00

This story made big news this past week among those interested in the recently passed health care legislation.

Almost a million workers won’t get a consumer protection in U.S. health law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.

Thirty companies and organizations, including Jack in the Box Inc., won’t be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees. The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn’t lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop their health insurance altogether.

Without the waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013, and unlimited coverage in 2014.

While the reporter, Mr. Armstrong is concerned about the "consumer protections" waived, most of us are focused on the bigger issue. The new health care bill is already damaging existing coverage, making it so costly that employers and insurers feel they have no choice but to drop plans. This is a huge failure for legislation that President Obama promised us would not affect our existing coverage, or force us away from the doctors we know and trust. If the new requirements were good, no one would need any waivers or exemptions. They'd improve the system as promised, not crash it.

The above story at Bloomberg comes on the heels of this troubling story:

Major health insurance companies in California and other states have decided to stop selling policies for children rather than comply with a new federal healthcare law that bars them from rejecting youngsters with preexisting medical conditions.

Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna Inc. and others will halt new child-only policies in California, Illinois, Florida, Connecticut and elsewhere as early as Thursday when provisions of the nation's new healthcare law take effect, including a requirement that insurers cover children under age 19 regardless of their health histories.

While the LA Times tries to make this sound like the fault of the insurers, it isn't. The truth about insurance is that exists to mitigate unforeseen risk. When you force insurance companies to take on large, known expenses, they fail, leaving everyone without coverage.

Do we need a method for caring for those with preexisting conditions? Of course. It would be heartless to leave them to fend for themselves. What's clear is the tack taken by the Obamacare legislation is not the right way.

The inescapable conclusion is that the health care bill turns out to do quite the opposite of what President Obama and lawmakers said it would. It doesn't expand options, it destroys them. It doesn't improve the system, it tears it down.

A charitable take would be to say the well-intentioned efforts of our legislators turn out not to work well in practice. A less generous opinion is what many of us have held all along. This legislation was never meant to do anything its backers claimed; it was designed to sweep away what we have in the U.S. so that a socialized system can be implemented instead. It just wasn't intended to crack the system quite this fast; they'd have preferred nothing prove them liars until after the November elections.

We can only hope this destructive law can either be rolled back, or that in some inexplicable magical way, the U.S. version of socialized medicine will work better than the systems failing Canada and the United Kingdom.

Crowd size at Glenn Beck's 8/28 Restoring Honor event

2010-09-09T18:00:00.000-07:00

Different news organizations have put out different crowd estimates at Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally on 8/28/2010:

An early AP report indicated "tens of thousands."
CBS reported 87,000 based on crowd size estimates by AirPhotosLive.com
NBC News estimated a much larger crowd of 500,000 people
MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough repeatedly said "500,000"
ABC News estimated "hundreds of thousands of people from around the country"
The New York Post reported "an overflow crowd of 300,000 people"

Recently on the Armstrong and Getty Show, they talked about the 87,000 estimate trying to compare it to the audience at Candlestick Park (seating 69,732 for football games according to wikipedia). I thought it was an interesting comparison so I assembled tiled images from Google Maps (scaled the same) to compare the National Mall to Candlestick stadium. Here's the first comparison:

Next I colored the areas which held the audience in both pics:

The area in front of the Washington Monument was a little more sparse than other areas, but still had a large amount of people in them. I didn't color the areas directly in front of the Lincoln Memorial or around it even though there were people there (you can see pics of the event at Glenn Beck's site as well as some aerial photos here -- the aerial photos have the advantage of being time-stamped). This is a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

I drew the colored areas using a vector drawing program, and so I had coordinates for the points of the colored polygons. A little math revealed that the combined area of the red, green, and blue areas bigger than the purple area, by a factor of about 5.9. If the density of the crowds were the same in the stadium that would mean about 413,000 in the crowd at the rally. In some of the areas the crowd were less dense than a stadium, but in other areas it was more dense (standing room only).

So a final estimate of about 400,000 seems reasonable, but CBS' estimate of 87,000 is borderline insane (or at least dishonest).

A mosque made by enemies

2010-08-19T14:00:00.000-07:00

To me, there are two questions about the mosque at ground zero:

Is it at ground zero
Who are the people behind it and what are their motives

Part of Ground Zero

The site planned for the mosque is where the existing Burlington Coat Factory building is. Take a look at these two photos to see its location:

Now realize that the reason the building is condemned is because 2 floors were destroyed when the landing gear from one of the planes ripped through it (some people have said that it was the engine of a plane, but I can't find verification of that). In a very real sense, this building is part of the attacks of the day of 9/11.

Who are the people involved with the mosque?

Perhaps the most annoying trope after the various attacks we've been subjected to by radical Muslims is the concern that there might be a backlash, that Islam is a religion of peace. Sadly, for many it is not a religion of peace.

The Pew Research Center found out that in the United States, 26% of Muslims 18-29 believe that "suicide bombing of civilian targets in defense of Islam" is acceptable at least some of the time (page 53-54 of the full study). So for 26% of young Muslims in the US, Islam is most certainly not a religion of peace.

The imam for the mosque is Feisal Abdul Rauf. I don't know much about Rauf, but I do know that when he was directly asked to condemn Hamas, he refused, and he wouldn't talk about the Muslim Brotherhood. To me, that tells me that he's sympathetic to Hamas and other terrorists. A few weeks after 9/11 he was interviewed by 60 minutes:

ED BRADLEY, CBS: (Voiceover) And throughout the Muslim world, there is also strong opposition to America's foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East because of its support of Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq.

Imam ABDUL RAUF: It is a reaction against the policies of the US government, politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.

BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.

BRADLEY: OK. You say that we're an accessory?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes.

BRADLEY: How?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of--of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it--in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.

See the clip over at Newsbusters. I love the passive-voice in this clip -- "the crime that happened". No Mr. Rauf, the crime was committed, by Muslims in the name of Islam. There are more problems with him -- Rauf is not on our side in this struggle, and his involvement should be a warning flag. Oh and the developer who bought the property for $4.8 million? He was a waiter in 2002. Where did all that money come from? Apparently the people involved don't have a problem taking money from Iran or the Saudis.

Add to all of this the points that Andrew already made, specifically that the name refers back to Islamic conquest of Spain, and the opening date was supposed to be the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Clearly, "sensitivity" is not their goal.

The people behind the mosque are not our friends. They are part of the Muslim community who are our enemies. They shouldn't be allowed to desecrate Ground Zero with their victory mosque.

Pelosi and the Mosque

2010-08-18T13:47:00.000-07:00

If you haven't heard Nancy Pelosi's comments on the near Ground Zero New York Mosque and community center, you should have a listen or read:

"There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," she said.

Credit to friend Jim Cross for this solid question:

How is it that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic party want to know how the people who oppose the Mosque are being funded but don't care how the mosque itself is being funded?

It seems that if one is liberal enough, one is much more concerned with tearing down conservatives than worrying about a little Wahhabi funding. If you're not familiar with Wahhabism, it's the branch of Islam that produced many of the 9/11 hijackers. They're also the ones that fund schools in the U.S. that produce valedictorians dedicated to assassinating the U.S. President. Usually, the money comes from Saudi Arabia, our dear friends. So it stands to reason we might want to be concerned about them funding a mosque right by the Ground Zero site in Manhattan.

My full take on the issue is that the problem isn't so much proximity to Ground Zero, though that does play a small role. The problem with the proposed Cordoba House (mosque and community center) is intent. The name "Cordoba" points to the Cordoba Caliphate and massive Cordoba Mosque which dominated Spain for a portion of the middle ages. The name symbolizes subjugation of the West.

With regard to location, the Islamist tradition of tearing down your church and building a mosque in its place does raise concern. The twin towers weren't a church, but the extremists responsible for the atrocity did see them as core to America's identity.

Then there's the fact they want to dedicate and open it on 9/11, commemorating the victory of extremists over unsuspecting Westerners. Why not do it on 9/12, to affirm the solidarity most of us felt following the attack? They've chosen everything about this mosque to be provocative so extremists can see how far they can push the weak, weak West.

The imam, or religious leader, behind the project is also objectionable, as articulated by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Peter King, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee:

"Abdul Rauf has cast blame for 9/11 on the US, and even refuses to call Hamas what it is - a foreign terrorist organization," they said.

Our problem is that if we want to live up to our principles, we probably have to let them do it. However, moderate Muslims are joining two-thirds of America in crying fowl. The whole article is worth a read, but here's an excerpt:

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

Quite simply the Cordoba House is an undisguised slap in the face to America, or if you prefer, it's extremists showing us the bottom of their shoes. We may have to allow it, but we're perfectly justified in being upset about it.

Mislabeling Anti-Illegal Immigration Groups

2010-07-28T05:50:00.000-07:00

While one expects unfair characterizations from the left about people who want secure borders and an end to illegal immigration, I was surprised to see Fox News playing along.

An anti-immigration group is calling on the Obama administration to ensure a smooth exit for illegal immigrants who are trying to leave the U.S. due to the weak economy and Arizona's strict new immigration law.
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) is urging U.S. citizens to pressure the White House and the Homeland Security Department to establish "safe departure" border checkpoints along the U.S. border for illegal immigrants so they can leave without fear of being detained or prosecuted for immigration crimes.

"The peaceful and gradual exodus of illegals from Arizona shows there is no need for comprehensive immigration reform amnesty," William Gheen, president of the group, said in a written statement. "Comprehensive immigration enforcement works and has the desired effect without mass deportations."

Emphasis mine. Seriously, the group is "Americans for Legal Immigration" and Fox calls them "anti-immigration." Once again, this is like calling "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" an anti-driving group.

We all agree lawful immigration strengthens America and always has. Lawful immigration advocates simply insist we need to be at least as rigorous in our defense of the rights of lawful residency as our neighbors Canada and Mexico, or every nation in the European Union.

Randomness: The Solar Plane

2010-07-08T13:03:00.000-07:00

PAYERNE, Switzerland — An experimental solar-powered plane completed its first 24-hour test flight successfully Thursday, proving that the aircraft can collect enough energy from the sun during the day to stay aloft all night.

Story here.

I knew this project would succeed. How?

Project co-founder Bertrand Piccard, himself a record-breaking balloonist, said many people had been skeptical that renewable energy could ever be used to take a man into the air and keep him there.

There was a Piccard at the helm. Enough said.

Protests in France

2010-06-28T07:15:00.000-07:00

I saw this story this morning and was interested in how well it displays problems with socialism.

PARIS – The front lines of the latest French protest against raising the retirement age revealed a remarkable sight: Not the slightest wrinkle, not a single gray hair.

Brandishing "Save our Pensions!" banners, students who haven't even entered the job market yet are already worried about what happens when they leave it.

Welcome to France, where workers' rights are so deeply entwined into the culture that even teenagers are unsettled about plans to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62, which is still among the lowest in Europe. The reform protest brought nearly a million people out into the streets across the country Thursday.
Young people fear they will lose the most from President Nicolas Sarkozy's pension reforms, which aim to cut France's ballooning deficit and make the money-losing pension system break even starting in 2018.

This nicely demonstrates the entitlement mentality. Fiscal reality isn't important to them. It doesn't matter that there's no way to keep their pension system going the way it is presently organized. They want what's coming to them even though they haven't yet contributed to the system. They're in school, financed by by other taxpayers, and demanding more than 40 years in advance that taxpayers yet unborn bear the burden of their early retirements. Not that they'll go to the trouble of giving birth to those imaginary taxpayers.

Shouldn't it be people in their 50's protesting the unexpected delay in their retirement? Maybe some are, though I haven't seen the stories. And maybe they're old enough to realize France has hit the point Margaret Thatcher is famously quoted as having brilliantly warned of: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Julie Mandelbaum, a 23-year-old geopolitics student...says the government should tax high wage-earners and banks instead to ensure there is enough money for pensions when she retires.

Oh, great idea Julie. Except banks don't pay taxes. They pass costs on to consumers through fee and rate hikes, just like any business does. So ultimately, she's saying she needs to pay more to cover her own retirement. I agree, though that's not really what she means, as indicated by the "top wage earners" line. Are there top wage earners in France any longer? I know personally a family that was doing really well, and emigrated here to leave the socialism behind (sorry guys, we're building it here despite watching it fail in Europe).

French students are staying in university longer and doing more internships because it's difficult to get into the job market. That means many don't start paying into the pension system until their late 20s — yet the reforms require workers to pay for 42 years to get a full pension.

Mandelbaum held a white placard with the equation, "27 + 42 equals 69."
"We don't get a steady job until we're 27, if we have to pay taxes for 42 more years on top of that, there's no way we'll retire at 62, not if we want to have a full pension," she said.

Wait, 42 whole years of work before you get to retire? That's just barbarian. What slave drivers the French government must be filled with to set such unreasonable expectations. I won't say 42 years of hard work, because it's nearly impossible to fire a bad worker in France, which is the reason French students have trouble finding jobs. Companies are so heavily taxed and regulated they can't afford many workers, and when they do hire they have to be really, really sure about the employee. It's often better not to hire anyone lest they be saddled with more dead weight.

What's wrong with retiring at 69? Doesn't that socialized medicine in France mean a longer, healthier life expectancy? A few more years of work shouldn't be a big deal, since pension ages were set years ago when life expectancy was much lower.

I do not understand how anyone can think it's a good idea for the U.S. to emulate these unsustainable systems.